Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00955/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00955-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marcos Antonio Lomeli,

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0955-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns in light of Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge[‘]s Report

and Recommendation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (doc. #34), and the

other post-Report and Recommendation documents filed by the parties, the Court

finds that the petitioner’s objections are meritless and that the Magistrate Judge

correctly determined that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, should be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

The petitioner has been detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement since November 9, 2006 pending the effectuation of an

administratively final order requiring his removal to Mexico. ICE has not removed

the petitioner because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the removal

order on February 15, 2008 pending its consideration of the petitioner’s judicial 

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 38 Filed 08/18/09 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 The appeal is Ninth Circuit no. 07-73250, filed August 17, 2007.

- 2 -

appeal; the appeal is still pending.1

The petitioner raised several statutory and constitutional grounds in his

habeas petition challenging the legality of his prolonged detention, some of which

have been mooted by subsequent events. Since the Court concludes that the

issue before it is the propriety of the petitioner’s current detention, any issues that

the petitioner now raises concerning the propriety of his initial detention are

irrelevant and will not be reached by the Court. See Alvarez-Mendez v. Stock,

941 F.2d 956, 960 (9th Cir.1991) (Court noted that since the case involved a

habeas corpus petition and not a claim for damages, the issue before it was

whether the government currently had the authority to detain the petitioner and

not whether his earlier detention may have been illegal.)

The petitioner’s primary legal claim is that he is entitled to be released from

detention because his removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably

foreseeable future due to the pendency of his appeal. The Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge properly determined that this argument is foreclosed by

Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.2008). In that case, which

involved a habeas petitioner who had been continually detained for over three

years pending his appeal of an order of removal, the Ninth Circuit concluded that

the detention was statutorily authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court

reasoned that while the detention was certainly prolonged as a result of the

petitioner’s pursuit of judicial review of the removal order, the detention was not

an indefinite one for purposes of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct.

2491 (2001), notwithstanding it lacked a certain end date because the petitioner

faced a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 38 Filed 08/18/09 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

given that there were no obstacles to the government repatriating him to Mexico if

his pending bid for judicial review of the removal order proved unsuccessful. 534

F.3d at 1062-63. See also, Casas-Castrillon v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 535

F.3d 942 (9th Cir.2008) (Court found that a detention of more than seven years

pending judicial review of a removal order was authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)

because the petitioner faced a significant likelihood of removal to Colombia once

his judicial and administrative review process was completed.) As the Magistrate

Judge correctly concluded, there is nothing in the record establishing that the

petitioner cannot be removed to Mexico if his appeal is denied.

Although the petitioner also argued in his habeas petition that his continued

detention was illegal because he had not as then been afforded an individual

bond hearing before an immigration judge, he subsequently was given a bond

redetermination hearing before an immigration judge on September 10, 2008. 

While the petitioner argued in his objections to the Report and Recommendation

that the Court should assume jurisdiction over the propriety of his continued

detention because his bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate given that

the immigration judge’s initial decision, dated October 14, 2008, stated that he did

not have jurisdiction to modify the petitioner’s custody status, the petitioner’s

argument is moot because the immigration judge thereafter entered an amended

order on November 4, 2008 wherein he stated that the jurisdiction-related

statement in the previous order had been a factual error and that the petitioner’s

continued detention was in fact based on him being a danger to the community

due to his 1998 felony conviction for lewd acts with a child, for which he received

a ten year sentence, and a number of earlier controlled substance violations. 

There is also no longer an issue concerning whether the Magistrate Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 38 Filed 08/18/09 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

properly determined that the petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies

regarding his objections to the bond hearing and the immigration judge’s

detention order because the Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently entered

an order on January 8, 2009 that affirmed the detention order on the ground that

the immigration judge had correctly determined that the petitioner would be a

danger to the community if released. 

Since the petitioner’s continued detention is authorized by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1226(a) and his continued detention has been administratively affirmed by the

BIA based on an individual bond hearing that occurred subsequent to the filing of

the habeas petition, the Court concludes that there is no issue currently

remaining in the petitioner’s habeas petition that may be reviewed by this Court. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) (“The Attorney General’s discretionary judgment

regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No Court

may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section

regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation or denial

of bond or parole.”) Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Supplement Petitioner[‘]s

Traverse Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(a) Due to New Facts and New Matters (doc. #31)

is granted and the Clerk of the Court shall file Petitioner[‘]s Supplement to

Traverse to Respondents[‘] Response to Order to Show Cause (doc. #32).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the

Record Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(e) (doc. #36) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the non-mooted portions of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. #30) are accepted and adopted by

the Court.

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 38 Filed 08/18/09 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is denied and that this action is

dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 38 Filed 08/18/09 Page 5 of 5