Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01870/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01870-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Silvino Garcia-Perez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina S. Kane, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-1870-PHX-SRB (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Silvino Garcia-Perez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. He alleges that (1)

he has suffered prolonged detention and is thus entitled to a bond redetermination hearing

under Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013), and (2) his convictions do not

make him a danger to the community. The Court agrees with Respondents that (1) GarciaPerez is not entitled to a bond redetermination hearing at this time, and (2) this Court does

not have jurisdiction to review the immigration court’s determination that Garcia-Perez is a

danger to the community.

BACKGROUND

Garcia-Perez is a native and citizen of Mexico. On January 8, 2013, he was taken into

custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and placed in removal proceedings.

On February 7, 2013, ICE found that Garcia-Perez was a danger to the community and

denied his request for release on bond. Garcia-Perez requested that the immigration judge

(IJ) conduct a bond redetermination hearing. On March 14, 2013, the IJ issued a written

Case 2:13-cv-01870-SRB Document 15 Filed 06/17/14 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 -

order denying bond. On May 3, 2013, Garcia-Perez appealed the IJ’s denial of bond to the

Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On June 10, 2013, the BIA affirmed the denial of

bond.

On July 17, 2013, the IJ ordered the removal of Garcia-Perez from the United States.

On November 20, 2013, the BIA affirmed the order of removal. Garcia-Perez then petitioned

for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Until the Ninth Circuit made its decision,

it ordered a temporary stay of removal. On March 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals dismissed

the petition for lack of jurisdiction and terminated the temporary stay of removal.

On July 26, 2013, while Garcia-Perez was awaiting the BIA’s decision on his appeal,

Garcia-Perez moved for a bond redetermination hearing under Rodriguez. On August 20,

2013, the IJ denied Garcia-Perez’s motion because Rodriguez was inapplicable. On

September 10, 2013, previous to when the BIA affirmed the order of removal, Garcia-Perez

filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

DISCUSSION

1. Entitlement to a Bond Redetermination Hearing

Garcia-Perez argues that he is entitled to a bond redetermination hearing because, he

alleges, the Ninth Circuit has determined that detention always becomes prolonged at six

months under Rodriguez. In Rodriguez, the Ninth Circuit held that aliens whose removal

proceedings are pending are entitled to bond hearings if their detention has become

prolonged, which the Court of Appeals has defined as longer than six months. 715 F.3d at

1139. However, Rodriguez applies only when removal proceedings are pending. Once

removal proceedings are final, the alien is then entitled to a bond hearing only if he has not

been removed within six months of the final removal order. Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d

1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2011).

Here, Garcia-Perez’s removal order became final after he submitted his Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, and he has not been detained for longer than six months since it

Case 2:13-cv-01870-SRB Document 15 Filed 06/17/14 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 -

became final. Therefore, Garcia-Perez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is not supported

by Ninth Circuit authority and is likely moot.

2. Jurisdiction over a Danger to the Community Determination

Garcia-Perez also argues that he was not properly found to be a danger to the

community. However, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this issue. “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.” 8

U.S.C. § 1226(e) (2012).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Silvino Garcia-Perez’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file objections timely to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file objections timely to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01870-SRB Document 15 Filed 06/17/14 Page 3 of 3