Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00166/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00166-1/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

1

 On March 25, 2010, Petitioner was taken into custody as a removable alien under

section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The removal period

commenced on May 5, 2010, when Petitioner was ordered removed to Cambodia.

2

 Respondent indicates that Petitioner “is on the Cambodian approved travel

document list and that his travel document will be forthcoming.” (Doc. 13, Ex. 14.)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sam Chan, )

)

Petitioner, ) CV 11-166-PHX-PGR (MEA)

)

v. ) ORDER

)

Katrina Kane, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________ )

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Aspey (Doc. 10) based on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner alleges that he has been detained in excess of the six-month

period held to be presumptively reasonable in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and

that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.1

Having reviewed de novo the Petition, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Aspey, Petitioner’s objections thereto and Respondent’s reply, the Court finds that

Petitioner’s objections lack merit. Specifically, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

finding that “Petitioner has not established that his particular circumstances make it unlikely

that he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.”2

 (Doc. 10 at 8.)

Case 2:11-cv-00166-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/06/11 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

- 2 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 10) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DATED this 6th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00166-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 2