Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02090/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

QING FENG WENG

Petitioner, 

vs.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2090-PHX-EHC (BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 31, 2006, Petitioner, Qing Feng Weng, currently in the custody of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (“Service”) and confined in the Immigration

Service Processing Center in Florence, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by A Person in Federal Custody (“Petition”), pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. §

2241. Respondent filed a Response to the Petition for Habeas Corpus on October 2,

2006, with Exhibits 1 through 20 attached. No reply was filed. 

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, on September 8, 2006, this matter

was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco for a Report and

Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its

independent review of the record, enter an order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus.

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 7
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 All exhibit numbers in this Report and Recommendation are

references to exhibit numbers in the exhibits attached to Respondents'

" Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." 

- 2 -

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a citizen and native of the People's Republic of China. (Ex. 1, p.1)1

Petitioner arrived in the United States at St. John, Virgin Islands, by boat, via Cuba, on

May 19, 1996, without being inspected by an Immigration Officer. On May 21, 1996,

Petitioner was taken into custody to be entered into immigration proceedings. (Id.) 

On May 21, 1996, an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing was issued

to Petitioner directing him to appear before an Immigration Judge, at a time to be later

set with notice to be provided, and charging Petitioner with removability under §

241(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") as an immigrant who

entered the United States without inspection. (Ex. 2, p. 3) Petitioner was released on

bond on June 27, 1996. (Ex. 3.) 

Petitioner appeared before an immigration judge (“IJ”), who issued a decision

on February 25, 1997. (Ex. 4.) The IJ ordered Petitioner's request for asylum under §

208 denied; denied Petitioner's request for withholding of deportation under § 243(h);

denied Petitioner's request for voluntary deportation under § 244(e); and ordered

Petitioner deported to the People's Republic of China. (Ex. 4.) 

Petitioner appealed, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) rejected his

brief as untimely, having been filed one day late. (Ex. 5.) The BIA allowed Petitioner

to file a motion for consideration of a late filed brief, but denied the motion on May 18,

1998. (Id.) Petitioner's appeal was denied by the BIA on April 26, 2001. (Ex. 6.)

Petitioner was granted 30 days to depart voluntarily. (Id.) 

Petitioner's bond was cancelled on January 8, 2003. (Ex. 7.) On January 28,

2003, notice was given by certified mail to Petitioner to report to INS ready for

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 7
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 This assertion was originally based on an unsigned declaration

submitted with the Answer as exhibit number 12. The Court struck

the document as an unsigned affidavit (erroneously noting it as

exhibit number 12, but correctly identifying the document as the

document submitted by Janie E. Bennett, Deportation Officer,

Department of Homeland Security), after the Respondent failed to

respond to an order to show cause why the document should not be

struck. The Court allowed the declaration to be refiled upon

realization that, due to docketing error, the Respondent had not been

served with the order to show cause. A motion and signed

declaration was submitted on January 8, 2007. The Court granted the

motion, ordering the exhibit filed.

- 3 -

departure to the People's Republic of China on March 11, 2003, with a valid passport.

(Ex. 8.) 

Petitioner was next apprehended by Border Patrol on October 3, 2005, at a

Greyhound Bus station, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was taken into custody. (Ex.

9.) 

On November 9, 2005, Petitioner was provided with a Notice to Alien of File

Custody Review, informing Petitioner that his custody status would be reviewed on or

about January 3, 2006, and further instructing Petitioner regarding the mandatory

requirements to assist in removal. (Ex. 10.) 

On January 20, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sent a

letter to the Consul General of the People's Republic of China requesting emergency

travel documents to facilitate Petitioner's departure from the United States. (Ex. 11.)

Respondent asserts that the Chinese Consulate asked Petitioner to complete

required documentation to obtain travel documents, but Petitioner refused to fill out the

documents2

. (Response, p. 3, Ex. 12)

On March 28, 2006, the deportation officer sent a letter to Headquarters, Office

of Field Operations, in Washington, DC, requesting assistance in obtaining travel

documents for Petitioner. (Ex. 13.) 

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 7
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 -

On April 6, 2006, the Filed Office Director signed a Notice of Failure to Comply

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 241.4 (g) letter, informing Petitioner that his custody status had

been reviewed, but that he would not be released because of his failure to assist in

timely and good faith efforts to obtain travel documents. (Ex. 14.) 

On April 18, 2006, another letter was sent to the Office of Field Operations

asking for assistance in obtaining travel documents. (Ex. 15.) 

On May 5, 2006, Petitioner was again instructed regarding his requirements to

assist in his removal. (Ex. 16.) On August 9, 2006, Petitioner was served with another

Notice of Failure to Comply letter. (Ex. 17.) 

On September 11, 2006, another request for emergency travel documents was

sent to the Chinese Consulate. (Ex. 18.) On September 13, 2006, Petitioner was again

advised of his responsibility to assist in his own removal. (Ex. 19.) On September 18,

2006, DHS sent a letter to the Chinese Consulate requesting an update on Petitioner's

travel documents. (Ex. 20.) 

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard - Indefinite Detention

The federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 confers jurisdiction upon

the federal courts to hear cases involving statutory and constitutional challenges to postremoval-period detention. Zadyvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 682 (2001). 

When a final order of removal has been entered, the Government ordinarily

secures the alien’s removal during a subsequent 90-day statutory removal period. See

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) (1996). However, further detention of inadmissible or

criminal aliens is authorized: “An alien ordered removed ... [pursuant to certain sections

relating to inadmissible or criminal aliens] ... may be detained beyond the removal

period...” See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) (1994). 

Thus, detention for more than 90 days pending removal is clearly authorized,

without statutory limit as to how long the alien may be detained. However, as discussed

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 7
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 -

below, case law finds implicit constitutional limits in certain circumstances.

Interpreting 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6), the Supreme Court concluded that the Government's

ability to detain an alien under this provision is not unlimited. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

U.S. 678, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2505 (2001). Continued detention is prohibited, “once

removal is no longer reasonable foreseeable....” Id. Detention of a removable alien for

up to six months is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701. “After this 6-month period,

once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of

removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with

evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. at 701.

Legal Standard - Refusal to Aid in Removal

Detention beyond the statutory removal period may also be extended beyond the

period of 90 days “if the alien fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith

for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's departure or conspires or acts to

prevent the alien's removal subject to an order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has held that continued detention

when an alien fails to act in good faith to aid in his own removal does not present the

same constitutional concerns raised when the continued detention is pursuant to the

statutory provision at issue in Zadvydas, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6): “The risk of indefinite

detention that motivated the Supreme Court's statutory interpretation in Zadvydas does

not exist when an alien is the cause of his own detention.” Pelich v. INS, 329 F.3d

1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit held that “an alien cannot assert a viable

constitutional claim when his indefinite detention is due to his failure to cooperate with

the INS's efforts to remove him.” Id. at 1061. If a petitioner could effectuate his or her

own removal by providing the information requested, then it naturally follows that the

detention is not destined to be indefinite. Id. at 1061. 

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 5 of 7
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 -

Analysis

Petitioner's final order of removal was issued on April 26, 2001, however, he

was not detained on the order until October 3, 2005. Thus, at this time, he has been

detained approximately one year and five months. 

Continued Detention Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6)

The Government asserts that Petitioner refuses to cooperate in his removal, and

thus continued detention is lawful pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). On November

9, 2005, Petitioner was notified of the requirement to assist in good faith in the

application of travel documents for the purpose of his removal, and was notified that

failure to do so would result in an extension of the statutory removal period. (Ex. 10.)

Deportation Officer Bennett, in a signed declaration, asserts that, on February

17, 2006, Petitioner refused to fill out the required travel document application. (Doc.

No. 12.) A copy of the travel document is not included as an exhibit in the Answer, but

the Notice of Failure to Comply (Ex. 14), indicates that Petitioner failed to fill out the

travel document in Chinese, and failed to fill out basic biographic information about his

parents, wife and child in China, to enable Chinese officials to verify his citizenship.

Petitioner refused to sign acknowledgment of service of the notice. (Id.) 

 Petitioner did not allege in his petition that he complied with all requests, in

good faith, to aid in obtaining travel documents, nor did he file a reply contradicting the

Government's factual basis or legal argument that his refusal to cooperate in obtaining

travel documents justifies his continued detention. 

The Magistrate Judge finds that the evidence has established that Petitioner has

failed to cooperate with his own removal, and extension of the period of detention is

authorized pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. 

Additionally, even if Petitioner's case fell within the confines of Zadvydas,

Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of providing good reason to believe that there

is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Petitioner

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 6 of 7
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 -

has been detained beyond the presumptively reasonable period of 6-months, but this

showing alone is insufficient to meet his burden. Furthermore, the Government has

rebutted any showing by demonstrating that Petitioner is a citizen of China, a country

to which the United States regularly removes aliens, and that any impediment to

Petitioner's removal is due to his own conduct. 

Accordingly, Petitioner's request to be released pursuant to Zadvydas must fail.

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the above reasons, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RECOMMENDS

that the District Court, after its independent review, issue an Order denying Petitioner's

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed August 31, 2006.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

with the District Court within ten days of being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation. If the objections are not timely filed they may be deemed waived.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated with the following case

number: CV 06-02090-PHX-EHC.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 7 of 7