Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05604/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05604-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMAD SAFDAR SHEIKH,

Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al., 

Respondents.

 /

No. C 03-05604 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2006:

The Court tentatively RESERVES RULING on Petitioner Mohamad Safdar Sheikh

(“Sheikh”)’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda

of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in

those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument 

or additional briefing. Cf. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:03-cv-05604-JSW Document 55 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Each party will have twenty minutes to address the following questions:

(1) “Habeas corpus jurisdiction has been extended beyond that which the most literal

reading of the statute might require ... to individuals who, though not subject to

immediate physical imprisonment, are subject to restraints not shared by the public

generally that significantly confine and restrain their freedom.” Miranda v. Reno, 238

F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240, 243

(1963), and Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973)). In the order

granting Sheikh leave to file a habeas petition, the Court concluded that Sheikh is “in

custody” for purposes of granting this Court jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

because he was arrested and then released on bail. Respondents argue that when a

petitioner is not physically detained, for immigration habeas petitions the “in custody”

concept is limited to petitioners who are subject to final orders of removal. In the cases

cited by Respondents, the petitioners were all subject to final orders of removal, and

thus, the issue of whether a final order of removal is a necessary condition to the “in

custody” determination was not before the courts. On what authority do Petitioners rely

to demonstrate that a final order of removal is a threshold requirement to demonstrating

the “in custody” requirement for petitioners that are not being physically detained?

(2) How do Respondents respond to Sheikh’s argument that exhaustion is not required

under Waziri v. United State Immigration and Naturalization Service, 392 F.2d 55 (9th

Cir. 1968) and Baria v. Reno, 94 F.3d 1335 (9th Cir. 1996)?

(3) If the immigration judge grants Sheikh’s application for cancellation of removal, would

the government appeal? 

(4) If Sheikh’s application for cancellation of removal is granted and the government does

not appeal, Sheikh’s residence in the United States between 1988 and 2006 would not be

considered towards establishing his five years necessary to apply for naturalization. 

What court, if any, would be able to review the rescission order at that time and under

what procedural posture?

Case 3:03-cv-05604-JSW Document 55 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

3

(5) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05604-JSW Document 55 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 3