Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02623/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02623-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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 - 06cv2623WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL GUEVARRA MACALMA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06CV2623 WQH (AJB)

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of

Homeland Security, et.al. ,

Respondents.

Hayes, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Petitioner’s Motion for an order 1) that the

government dismiss its appeal before the BIA; 2) that the Court modify its May 22, 2007 order

pursuant to Tijani; and 3) for injunctive relief preventing the government from re-detaining

petitioner without the benefit of a hearing. (Doc. # 24.)

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Paul Guevarra Macalma is a native and citizen of the Philippines. Macalma

was born in Manila on April 24, 1981. Macalma’s father Benjamin Macalma left the

Philippines and was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on December

31, 1981. Benjamin Macalma became a United States citizen by naturalization on June 18,

1993. 

On November 16, 1996, Macalma entered the United States as a lawful permanent

resident. 

On November 20, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security took custody of

Macalma and placed him in removal proceedings. Macalma was charged with deportability

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 10
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 - 06cv2623WQH

under Section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude

committed within five years after admission for which a sentence of one year or longer may

be imposed. In the hearing before the Immigration Judge, Macalma claimed United States

citizenship by acquisition through his naturalized father. 

On March 10, 2004, the Immigration Judge found that Macalma was not a citizen and

ordered him removed to the Philippines. Macalma filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

On October 22, 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision of the

Immigration Judge that Macalma had not derived citizenship through his father under former

section 321 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a).

On November 16, 2004, Macalma filed a Petition for Review in the Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit along with a motion to stay deportation pending resolution of the appeal.

Macalma v. Gonzales, No. 04-75821. 

On June 14, 2005, Respondents filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for

stay of removal.

On August 5, 2005, the Court of Appeals filed an order which appears in the docket in

part as follows: “respondent has filed a statement of non-opp to mtn for stay of removal;

temporary stay of removal continues in effect until the issuance of the mdt or further order of

the ct.” (Docket # 6, Exhibit 12 at 5.)

On June 5, 2006, Respondents filed a motion to remand to the Board of Immigration

Appeals for reconsideration of the determination that Macalma had not derived citizenship

through his father under former section 321 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8

U.S.C. § 1432(a). Respondents requested that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the

Board “so that it can review this case in light of the Court’s decision in Minaysan [v. Gonzales,

401 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2005)].” (Doc. #6, Exhibit 16 at 2.) 

On August 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals entered an order which appears on the docket

in part as follows: “unless an opp to the mtn [to remand] is filed within 14 days of this order,

the mtn will be granted.” (Doc. # 6, Exhibit 14 at 7.)

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 10
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 - 06cv2623WQH

On September 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals granted Respondents’ “unopposed”

motion to remand and stated “the parties are deemed to have agreed that the court’s remand

order shall stay petitioner’s removal.” (Doc. # 6, Exhibit 14 at 7.)

On November 28, 2006, Macalma filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc.

# 1.) Macalma asserted that he was entitled to release from the custody of Respondents under

appropriate conditions of supervision. Macalma argued that his prolonged detention was

contrary to the immigration laws and the United States Constitution. Macalma asserted that

1) there was no statute which authorized his detention of more than three years, 2) the

immigration statutes and due process required that a hearing should be held to determine

whether his continued detention was justified, and 3) the sheer length of his detention violated

the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Macalma asserted that his detention

under 8 U.S.C. §1226(c)(1)(C) was not authorized at any time because he was sentenced on

his 2000 conviction for receipt of stolen property to three years of probation and was not

sentenced to at least one year imprisonment as required pursuant to Section 1226(c)(1)(C).

Even if Section 1226(c) applied, Macalma asserted that his case is not distinguishable in any

meaningful way from the case of Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005) in which the

Court of Appeals concluded that detention of two years and eight months was not within the

authority conferred by Section 1226(c).

On December 7, 2006, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause why the Petition should

not be granted ordering the Respondents to file a written return. (Doc. # 2.)

On March 5, 2006, Respondents filed a Return in Opposition to the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 6.) Respondents asserted that Section 1226(c)(1)(C) mandated

detention for Macalma because he has been convicted of committing a crime involving moral

turpitude and sentenced to at least one year of imprisonment. Respondents asserted that the

Tijani case applied only to cases involving prolonged administrative removal proceedings and

is not applicable to judicial delay. Respondents asserted that Macalma has the ability to

prosecute his appeal from his home country and that he chose instead to pursue his claim

through judicial review from within the United States making his detention voluntary. 

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 10
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

- 4 - 06cv2623WQH

On March 9, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a ruling “once again

dismiss[ing] the appeal. (Doc. # 13, Exhibit 25 at 2.) The Board of Immigration Appeals

considered “Minasyan to be materially distinguishable from the present case for a number of

reasons.” (Id.) The Board concluded that Macalma had not met his burden of proving that he

derived United States citizenship through either of his parents. (Id. at 3.)

On May 22, 2007, this Court filed an order stating in part:

Petitioner is held under the detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(C)

which provides that “the Attorney General shall take into custody an alien who -

is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title on the basis of an

offense for which the alien has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at

least 1 year.” The documents submitted in this case do not establish that

Petitioner has been “sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.” 8

U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(C). Respondent has not established that 8 U.S.C. §

1226(c)(1)(C) authorizes the mandatory detention of the Petitioner. Based upon

the record in this case, Petitioner is entitled to a release hearing pursuant to the

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Habeas Corpus is granted as

follows: Respondents shall provide a release hearing to Petitioner pursuant to the

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 10 days of the date of this order. The

Court appoints the Federal Defender as counsel for Petitioner for the sole

purpose of representation in this habeas action. Respondents shall file a status

report in this case within 20 days of the date of this order. This case will remain

open pending further order of this Court.

(Doc. #19 at 6.) The only evidence submitted in the record by Respondents showed that “On

September 20, 2000, Petitioner was convicted in California state court of receiving stolen

property in violation of California Penal Code §496(a) and “sentenced to three years of

probation which was formally revoked on September 16, 2003.” (Id. at 1.) 

On May 29, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened Macalma’s immigration

proceedings and remanded proceedings to the immigration court. 

On May 29, 2007, the Immigration Judge held a release hearing. The Immigration

Judge informed counsel for the Macalma that “the District Court appeared to be unaware that

the basis for the Court’s mandatory custody finding of January 9, 2004 was premised upon the

representations . . . that [Macalma] was convicted for possession of drug paraphernalia in

2003.” (Doc. # 27, Exhibit at 5.) The release hearing was continued to June 6, 2007 to allow

briefing by the parties. 

At the June 6, 2007 hearing, the Immigration Judge reviewed the following facts :1)

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 4 of 10
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

- 5 - 06cv2623WQH

that on January 9, 2004 a determination was made at a bond hearing for Macalma that his drug

related conviction [January 28, 2003 in San Diego Superior Court for Possession of Drug

Paraphernalia in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11364] qualified as

a deportable offense relating to a controlled substance resulting in the mandatory custody

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B); 2) that on January 23, 2004, the Immigration Judge

found that Macalma qualified for “automatic citizenship” pursuant to the provisions of 8

U.S.C. § 1432 terminating the removal proceedings; and 3) that on February 6, 2004, the

Immigration Judge vacated the order terminating the removal proceedings finding that

Macalma failed to qualify for citizenship resulting in the order of removal. The Immigration

Judge advised the parties that Macalma’s “September 29, 2000 conviction for receiving stolen

property was not the basis for a finding of mandatory custody pursuant to Section 236(c) of

the Act; 8 U.S.C. 1226(c).” The Immigration Judge explained that it was [Macalma’s] “2003

conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia that triggered the mandatory custody

provisions of Section 236(c)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(B).” (Doc. # 27, Exhibit

at 5.) The Immigration Judge concluded that “the mandatory custody order of January 9, 2004

was legally sufficient when entered and was sufficient to hold [Macalma] during the pendency

of removal proceedings. . . . however, in light of [Macalma’s] prolonged period of detention

in excess of three years and seven months, valid issues relevant to the continuing applicability

of the mandatory custody provisions . . . have been raised.” (Id. at 6.) The Immigration Judge

reviewed the court decisions in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 ( 2003) and Tijani v. Willis, 430

F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005) and entered the following findings and conclusions:

[Macalma] has been incarcerated for more than 3 years and 7 months. The

delays in [Macalma’s] case have not been caused by [Macalma’s] efforts to

engage in tactics that are intended to stall a determination of issues relevant to

his removal from the United States. Without addressing this Court’s assessment

of [Macalma’s] success in challenging his removal, [Macalma] has raised

substantial issues against his removal that have been adjudicated by this Court

and the Board of Immigration Appeals. A final determination of [Macalma’s]

removal case has been delayed at no fault of [Macalma]. A number of

jurisdictional errors were triggered when The Board failed to enter DHS’s

February 20, 2004 appeal into its electronic docketing system. It appears that

DHS then failed to withdraw that appeal once the Court had granted DHS

counsel’s motion to reconsider on March 10, 2004.

[Macalma’s] case has been returned to this Court for the entry of a new decision

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 5 of 10
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

- 6 - 06cv2623WQH

on the merits of [Macalma’s] derivative claim. That determination will include

evidence [Macalma] has produced for the first time on appeal as well as an

analysis of [Macalma’s] claim in light of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in

Minasyan v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2005). Assuming the Court

expects to complete [Macalma’s] removal proceedings within 90 days, an

adverse decision on [Macalma’s] derivative citizenship claim preserves

[Macalma’s] right to administrative and judicial review of any removal order.

Were [Macalma] to pursue all legal remedies, his case would not be completed

within the next year. 

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that [Macalma’s] continued

detention is unjustified and unreasonable. Due Process required that [Macalma]

be provided this custody review hearing where [Macalma] is entitled to a

determination regarding the amenability for release. For purposes of making

such a determination DHS is required to provide evidence that [Macalma] is a

flight risk or a danger to the community. 

(Doc. #27 Exhibit at 8.) The Immigration Judge concluded that Macalma is not a flight risk

and that Macalma’s crimes “are not so serious that the Court can find that [he] is a danger to

the community and will continue to commit crimes if released on bond.” The Immigration

Judge “ORDERED that [Macalma] is hereby released from the custody of the Department of

Homeland Security upon the posting of a $7,000 bond.” (Id. at 9.) 

Respondent filed an appeal from the June 6, 2007 decision of the Immigration Judge

to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals in which Respondents assert that Macalma is subject

to mandatory detention and that the Immigration Judge relied upon Tijani in error. (Doc. # 24

Exhibit A.) 

On June 6, 2007, the Respondents filed a “Government’s Court-Ordered Status Report”

in this case which stated in part:

...it is the Government’s position that this Court’s May 22, 2007 Order governed

only the application of the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)

vis-a-vis Macalma’s 2000 conviction and that it has complied with the Court’s

May 22, 2007 Order. DHS may pursue its appeal of Judge De Paolo’s bond

decision insofar as it concerns the application of Macalma’s 2003 conviction,

and DHS has authority to change Macalma’s current bond conditions given a

change in circumstances that warrant such a change. Furthermore, if a final

removal order is issued against Macalma, DHS (sic) will be taken into custody

for the purpose of executing the removal order. 

(Doc. # 22 at 4.) 

On June 27, 2007, Macalma filed the motions now pending before this Court “for the

Court to : (1) order the Government to dismiss its appeal before the BIA as non-compliant with

this Court’s May 22, 2007 order; (2) modify this Court’s May 22, 2007 order releasing

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 6 of 10
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

- 7 - 06cv2623WQH

Petitioner pursuant to Tijani, the Immigration Judge’s findings, and bond; and (3) order

injunctive relief preventing the Government from re-detaining Petitioner without the benefit

of a hearing.” (Document # 24.) 

On July 6, 2007, Respondent filed a response to Macalma’s motions. Respondents

assert that Macalma’s motions are moot on the grounds that the relief requested has been

granted. Respondents contend that the Court should do no more than enter an order that

Macalma shall have thirty days to renew his habeas proceeding in the event that Respondents

prevails in their appeal of the order of the Immigration Judge and the BIA concludes that

Macalma is subject to mandatory detention. 

On July 12, 2007, this Court held a hearing on Macalma’s pending motions. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Macalma contends that the Respondents have waived the factual position that he is

subject to mandatory detention based upon the alleged conviction in 2003 for simple

possession of paraphernalia. Macalma contends that the issue of mandatory detention was

fully briefed by the parties prior to the May 22, 2007 order of this Court and the Respondents

chose not to argue that the alleged 2003 possession conviction was a predicate offense to

mandatory detention. Macalma contends that the Respondents are collaterally estopped from

arguing that mandatory detention applies to him in a different forum because this issue was

litigated before this Court and found in his favor. Macalma contends that the law of the case

and the interests of justice require the Court to order the Respondents to dismiss their BIA

appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order releasing him. Even if collateral estoppel does not

preclude the Respondents from asserting that the 2003 alleged possession of paraphernalia

conviction requires mandatory detention, Macalma contends that the Respondents cannot and

did not establish that the alleged violation of Cal H&S Code §11364 is an offense subject to

mandatory detention under Section 1226(c)(1)(B). Macalma contends that the alleged

violation of Cal H&S Code §11364 does not qualify under the categorical approach or the

modified categorical approach as an offense “relating to a controlled substance” as provided

in Section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 7 of 10
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

- 8 - 06cv2623WQH

Macalma further contends that his case is not distinguishable from Tijani v. Willis and

that this Court should modify its prior order and order his release pursuant to Tijani. Macalma

further seeks injunctive relief based upon the Respondent’s position that they will redetain him

if the BIA reverses the Immigration Judge’s order releasing him upon the posting of bond.

Respondents assert that it would be premature for this Court to expand its prior order

to grant the relief requested at this stage in the proceedings because Macalma has prevailed

before the Immigration Judge. Respondents contend that Macalma’s current custody is not in

dispute because the Immigration Judge has conducted a release hearing and ordered

Macalma’s release upon the posting of bond. Respondents contend that their bond appeal is

not inconsistent with this Court’s prior order because this Court ruled that Macalma’s 2000

conviction did not trigger mandatory detention. Respondents contend that it is premature for

this Court to decide whether Tijani applies because the Immigration Judge ruled in Macalma’s

favor and applied the Tijani case law. Respondents concede that the Court should order that

“if the Government prevails before the BIA on the issue of whether Petitioner may and must

be detained (namely a ruling that Tijani does not apply and that Petitioner is subject to

mandatory detention on the basis of his 2003 conviction), Petitioner shall have thirty days from

the date of the BIA’s order to renew these habeas proceedings on such issue or issues and that

ICE shall not take Petitioner into custody pending such thirty days and/or renewed habeas

proceedings.” (Doc. # 27 at 7.) 

CONCLUSION

The writ of habeas corpus is available to review the legality of Executive detention. See

I.N. S. v. Cyr., 533 U.S. 304, 305 (2001). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, federal judges may grant

the writ of habeas corpus on the application of a prisoner held “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the federal

judge “entertaining the an application for writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.” The writ of habeas corpus is intended to be a “swift and imperative remedy in all

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 8 of 10
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

- 9 - 06cv2623WQH

cases of illegal restraint or confinement.” Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400, 83 S.Ct. 822, 828

(1963). 

On December 7, 2006, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause why the Petition of Writ

of Habeas Corpus should not be granted ordering the Respondents to file a written return no

later than December 29, 2006. (Doc. # 2.) This Order to Show Cause required Respondents

to file “a memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondents’ position.” Id. Respondents

filed a return and did not assert that Macalma was subject to mandatory detention based upon

the alleged conviction in 2003 for possession of paraphernalia. Pleadings filed on behalf of

Macalma specifically raised the issue that his 2000 conviction did not meet the qualification

for mandatory detention because he had not been sentenced to at least one year imprisonment.

Respondents failed to address this issue specifically raised by Macalma and failed to establish

in the record that Macalma was subject to mandatory detention. Respondents were required

to come forward with facts and law to support Macalma’s continued detention and failed to

present any evidence of or argument regarding the alleged conviction in 2003 for possession

of paraphernalia. As a result, the order of this Court filed on May 22, 2007 did not take into

account the alleged 2003 conviction for possession of paraphernalia.

The order of this Court filed on May 22, 2007 required Respondents to provide a release

hearing to Macalma. Pursuant to the order of this Court, a release hearing was held before an

Immigration Judge and the Immigration Judge ordered Macalma’s release upon the posting of

bond. Macalma does not challenge the order of the Immigration Judge releasing him upon the

posting of bond in this proceeding. Since Macalma has been ordered released upon bond, this

Court is not required at this stage in the proceedings to decide whether Respondent’s failure

present any evidence of or argument regarding the alleged conviction in 2003 for possession

of paraphernalia should preclude the Respondents from relying on this conviction as a basis

for mandatory detention in this case. Macalma was afforded the relief ordered by this Court,

the Immigration Judge applied Tijani and ordered Macalma released upon the posting of bond

which has not been challenged in the immigration proceeding or in this proceeding. It would

be premature for this Court to enter a further order based upon what may happen in the appeal

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 9 of 10
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

- 10 - 06cv2623WQH

to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. The Court will order that Petitioner shall have thirty

days from the date of the BIA’s order to renew these habeas proceedings if the BIA orders that

Petitioner must be detained, and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall not take

Petitioner into custody pending such thirty days or further order of this Court. Under the

unique facts of this case, the Court concludes that this habeas proceedings will remain open

and that Macalma should be afforded the opportunity to renew these habeas proceedings prior

to any revocation of the order releasing him upon the posting of bond. The parties shall file a

status report no later than August 20, 2007.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. # 24.) for an order 1) that

the government dismiss its appeal before the BIA is denied without prejudice; 2) that the Court

modify its May 22, 2007 order pursuant to Tijani is denied without prejudice; and 3) for

injunctive relief preventing the government from re-detaining petitioner without the benefit of

a hearing is granted as follows: Petitioner shall have thirty days from the date of the BIA’s

order to renew these habeas proceedings if the BIA orders that Petitioner must be detained,

and Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall not take Petitioner into custody pending such

thirty days or further order of this Court. 

DATED: July 13, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02623-WQH-AJB Document 29 Filed 07/13/07 Page 10 of 10