Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01550/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01550-2/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

1

 For detailed factual and procedural history, see Doc. 19, § II.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arturo Gamez-Villagrana, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Katrina Kane, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-1550-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

Petitioner, presently incarcerated in the federal Detention Center at Eloy, Arizona,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 10, 2007

(Doc. 1), challenging his continued detention during his immigration proceedings. On

November 19, 2007, Respondents filed their Response. (Doc. 11.) Petitioner filed a Reply

on January 18, 2008. (Doc. 16.) The Petitioner's Petition is now ripe for consideration.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin made proposed findings of fact,1

 report, and

recommendation pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 72(b),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local Rules of

Civil Procedure. The Court will now consider Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 19.), as well as the Objections (Doc. 20), Response (Doc. 21), and

Reply (Doc. 22) in support of the Objections.

///

Case 2:07-cv-01550-SMM Document 23 Filed 07/21/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 The information introduced at the full evidentiary hearing held before Judge Martone

was not available to Judge Irwin at the time his Report and Recommendation was entered.

- 2 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which Objections are filed and for clear error for

those facts to which no Objections are filed. Id.; Local Rule 1.15(b); see also Barilla v.

Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1989) (failure to file objections relieves the district court of

conducting de novo review of the magistrate’s factual findings). 

DISCUSSION

It is the Respondent’s contention that this Court should reject the Report and

Recommendation of the Honorable Magistrate Judge and deny the petition on the grounds

that Petitioner’s removal is in fact imminent and foreseeable. 

On September 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals (Gamez-Villagrana v. Mukasey, Case No. 05-75441), and on August 2,

2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the petition for review was to be held in

abeyance pending the case being transferred to the District Court of Arizona for a de novo

hearing concerning the question of citizenship. The case was then transferred to the District

of Arizona as Gamez-Villagrana v. Mukasey, CV-07-1519-PHX-FJM (D. Az.), and set for

a full evidentiary hearing for June 10, 2008.

On June 10, 2008, the District Court of Arizona held the full evidentiary hearing for

Gamez-Villagrana v. Mukasey, in which District Court Judge Martone was charged with the

task of determining Petitioner’s claims of U.S. derivative citizenship.2

 After both sides

presented their respective cases at the hearing, Judge Martone found that Petitioner had not

met his burden to establish citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c) and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g). See

June 10, 2008 Order.

Pursuant to Judge Martone’s Order, the clerk of the district court entered final

Case 2:07-cv-01550-SMM Document 23 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 3
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

 For an analysis regarding “imminent and foreseeability,” see docket 19.

- 3 -

judgment in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner. See id. at 2. Petitioner’s claim of

citizenship is the sole issue of his Petition for Review. In Petitioner’s Opening Brief, he

states that the only issue for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide is: “Was there 

substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the [Immigration Judge’s] . . . decision

that [Petitioner] failed to establish acquired citizenship under the [Immigration and

Nationality Act] where credible [evidence] . . . demonstrated that [Petitioner’s] mother was

physically present in the United States” for the required amount of time. See Petitioner’s

Opening Brief at 1. This issue has been determined, therefore the Petition for Review is now

resolved. As a result of these developments, removal of the Petitioner is both foreseeable and

imminent.3

 Petitioner’s citizenship claim has been resolved, eliminating the sole remaining

issue of his Petition for Review. Consequently, the Respondent argues that Petitioner’s

removal proceedings will soon be brought to a close, and the Respondent’s continued

detention of Petitioner is fully justified. This Court agrees and takes judicial notice of Judge

Martone’s findings.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 19.)

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

Corpus. (Doc. 1.)

DATED this 21st day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01550-SMM Document 23 Filed 07/21/08 Page 3 of 3