Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01952/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01952-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: Application for Naturalization

---

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

This Court did not receive a copy of the petition until today’s date.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THO NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

NANCY ALCANTAR, et al.,

Respondents

 /

No. C-08-1952 MMC

ORDER DENYING IN PART PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT

BE GRANTED BASED ON REMAINING

CLAIM; GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Before the Court is petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed April 14,

2008.1

 In connection therewith, petitioner has filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”).

Petitioner, a citizen of Vietnam who states he entered the United States prior to July

12, 1995, (see Petition ¶ 7, 18, Ex. D), alleges that on August 29, 2003, an immigration

judge ordered that petitioner be removed, (see Petition ¶ 14), and that he was thereafter

released from custody pursuant to an Order of Supervision, (see Petition ¶¶ 1, 4). 

Petitioner further alleges that he has been instructed to appear before respondents on April

21, 2008 for the purpose of effectuating his removal to Vietnam, (see Petition ¶¶ 2, 3, Ex.

A), but that such removal cannot occur because, pursuant to an agreement between the

Case 3:08-cv-01952-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 4
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

United States and Vietnam and dated January 22, 2008 (“Agreement”), “Vietnamese

citizens are not subject to return to Vietnam . . . if they arrived in the United States before

July 12, 1995,” (see Petition ¶ 17, Ex. C).

In his petition, petitioner raises three claims: (1) because petitioner cannot be

removed to Vietnam under the terms of the Agreement, if he were confined, such

confinement would be unlawful because it would be indefinite; (2) petitioner received

ineffective assistance of counsel at his removal hearing; and (3) the immigration judge

conducting the removal hearing committed error by not advising petitioner of certain of his

rights and by not providing a Vietnamese-speaking interpreter.

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus where the

petitioner alleges he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court shall “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.” 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

Petitioner’s first claim is based on the theory that because, in light of the Agreement,

respondents will not be able to effectuate petitioner’s removal, petitioner would, if returned

to custody, be subject to indefinite confinement. At the time the instant petition was filed,

however, petitioner was not in actual custody; indeed, he challenges herein any “intended

detention,” (see Petition ¶ 26), i.e., action that may or may not be taken in the future. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s first claim is premature, and will be dismissed without prejudice to

petitioner’s refiling his first claim in a new petition in the event petitioner, at a later date,

becomes subject to indefinite confinement.

Petitioner’s second claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, is based on the

allegation that petitioner’s counsel was not licensed to practice law and, in any event, failed

to file an application for suspension of deportation, which application, petitioner argues,

would likely have been granted if made. As relief, petitioner seeks an order directing that

his application be considered by the immigration judge. (See Petition, prayer for relief,

Case 3:08-cv-01952-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 4
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 petition is silent as to whether petitioner has exhausted this claim.

3

¶ 4.) The Court, arguably, has jurisdiction over such claim. Cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.

3d 969, 979 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding district court has jurisdiction to consider alien’s claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel, where “successful habeas petition . . . will lead to

nothing more than ‘a day in court’ for [the alien]”).2 Accordingly, the Court will direct

respondents to show cause why petitioner should not be entitled to relief based on such

claim.

Petitioner’s third claim is, as noted, based on errors assertedly made by the

immigration judge during the removal hearing. A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which the petitioner challenges an order of removal. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Accordingly, petitioner’s third claim will be dismissed, without

prejudice to petitioner’s realleging such claim in a petition for review before the Ninth

Circuit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(2).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. Petitioner’s first and third claims are hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice.

2. Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later

than April 28, 2008, why, in light of the second claim, the instant petition should not be

granted.

3. Petitioner may, no later than May 7, 2008, file a traverse to respondents’ answer.

4. As of May 7, 2008, or the date on which petitioner files a traverse to respondents’

answer, whichever is earlier, the Court will, unless the parties are advised that oral

argument is necessary, take the matter under submission.

5. Petitioner having shown good cause therefor, petitioner’s application to proceed

IFP is hereby GRANTED.

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-01952-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 4
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

6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the

petition and its attachments upon respondents and respondents’ attorney, the United

States Attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01952-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/21/08 Page 4 of 4