Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01101/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rami Fuad Tawasha, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1101-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner Rami Fuad Tawasha (A043-705-269), who is represented by counsel, has

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will

require Respondents to answer the Petition.

Petitioner is a native of Kuwait. He has been a lawful permanent resident of the

United States since 1993. On May 20, 2009, an Immigration Judge found that Petitioner was

removable as an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony and ordered that he

be removed to Jordan or in the alternative Kuwait. On September 29, 2009, the Board of

Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. On October 9, 2009, he filed a petition for

review and a motion for stay of removal with the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. Tawasha v. Holder, No. 09-73222 (9th Cir.). On March 24, 2010, the Ninth

Circuit continued Petitioner’s temporary stay of removal until it issues its mandate. Id.

Petitioner argues that his continued detention while his appeal is pending is

unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. See CasasCase 2:11-cv-01101-GMS-ECV Document 14 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF - 2 -

Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (an alien who is

subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is entitled to a hearing before an

Immigration Judge “with the power to grant him bail unless the government establishes that

he is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community”). An answer to the Petition will be

required. Because summonses appear to have been served and because counsel for

Respondents has entered an appearance, the Court will not direct the Clerk to effect service

of process.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents must answer the Petition within

20 days of the date this Order is filed. Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in

place of an answer without first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Petitioner

may file a reply within 20 days from the date of service of the answer. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Edward

C. Voss pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further

proceedings and a report and recommendation.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01101-GMS-ECV Document 14 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 2