Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02146/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02146-0/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

Ling Hui Yang,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Kip Crowler, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2146-PHX-SRB (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, has filed an Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, docket # 12, asserting that her continued

detention by the Department of Homeland Security is unlawful. Petitioner seeks release

from custody. Respondents have filed a Suggestion of Mootness, asserting that this

matter is moot because Petitioner was released on August 7, 2009. (docket # 23) 

I. Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of China. On November 1, 2007, Petitioner was

apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers when she

attempted to enter the United States without inspection. Petitioner was placed in custody

in Florence, Arizona, where she was detained until August 7, 2009. After Petitioner

expressed a fear of persecution if she were removed to China, she was interviewed by an

Asylum Pre-screening Officer (“APSO”). On November 14, 2007, the APSO found that

Petitioner did not have a credible fear of persecution in China and ordered her removed

from the United States under the expedited removal statute, 8 U.S.C. §

Case 2:08-cv-02146-SRB Document 24 Filed 08/27/09 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

1 In her Original Complaint, Petitioner challenged her § 1225(e) expedited removal

order and also claimed that she is entitled to relief under the United Nations Convention

Against Torture. (docket # 1) Because the Court previously dismissed those claims, see

docket # 10, the Court will not revisit those claims to the extent they are asserted in the

Amended Petition. 

- 2 -

1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(I). On November 27, 2007, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) affirmed the

APSO’s determination. 

On January 29, 2008, the IJ denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen for lack of

jurisdiction. On April 14, 2008, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed

Petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On October 6, 2008, the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review for lack of

jurisdiction. On October 30, 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate and on November

12, 2008, it denied Petitioner’s motion to recall the mandate. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus which this Court

dismissed with leave to amend.1

 (dockets # 1, # 10) On March 3, 2009, Petitioner filed

an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting that, because she lacks travel

documents, China will not accept her if she is returned there. Relying on Clark v.

Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (stating that when there is no reasonable likelihood that a

foreign government will accept an inadmissible alien’s return in the reasonably

foreseeable future, DHS may not detain the alien for more than the presumptively

reasonable period of six months), Petitioner claims that her lengthy detention pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1231 has become unlawful. Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody. 

II. Analysis

As previously stated, Petitioner seeks release from custody on the ground that her

lengthy detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (or 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(iv)) has

become unlawful. (docket # 12) After Petitioner filed her Amended Petition, on August

7, 2009, she was released under an Order of Supervision. (docket # 23, docket # 23-1) 

Case 2:08-cv-02146-SRB Document 24 Filed 08/27/09 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

- 3 -

Because Petitioner has been released from custody, she has been awarded the relief she

was seeking in her § 2241 petition.

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court

jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445

U.S. 388, 395 (1980); see also PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996). An

actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of judicial review. Ortez v. Chandler,

845 F.2d 573, 574-575 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that no case or controversy existed where

movant, who challenged his bond determination, had been deported because the relief he

requested — reduction of his bond — could no longer be effected.) This limitation

restricts the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases where there is a possible judicial

resolution. Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 395. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review moot

issues. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2005)

(stating that “[i]t is an inexorable command of the United States Constitution that the

federal courts confine themselves to deciding actual cases and controversies.”). A moot

action is not subject to a judicial resolution. An action is moot when the parties lack a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The test for mootness is whether the court can

give a party any effective relief in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in their

favor. “That is, whether the court can ‘undo’ the effects of the alleged wrongdoing.”

Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir.1989).

Here, Petitioner challenges her detention by DHS and seeks release from custody. 

In view of Petitioner’s release from custody, the relief she requests — release from

custody — can no longer be effected. Therefore, no “case or controversy” remains and

the Petition is moot. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding

that because petitioner only requested release from custody and had been released, the

court could provide no further relief and the petition was properly dismissed.); American

Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Services, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating

that “[a] claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy.”)(citation

Case 2:08-cv-02146-SRB Document 24 Filed 08/27/09 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 -

omitted); Xie v. Schiltgen, No. C 99-4150 VRW, 2001 WL 637409, * 1 (N.D. Cal., May

24, 2001). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (docket # 12) be DENIED as moot. 

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 ten 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(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties

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

objections 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

timely to file objections 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 27th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02146-SRB Document 24 Filed 08/27/09 Page 4 of 4