Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01525/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01525-1/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

JOSEPH ANDERSON, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 08-01525 PHX MHM (MEA)

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

KATRINA KANE, )

) 

Respondent. )

)

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA:

Mr. Joseph Anderson (“Petitioner”), who is confined at

the Pinal County Jail, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2241 on

August 18, 2008. Petitioner alleges his detention by Respondent

is unlawful because he is a United States citizen. The petition

was dismissed on September 18, 2008. See Docket No. 4.

On September 22, 2009, the Court granted Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration and reopened this matter and ordered

Respondent to file an answer to the petition. Respondents filed

an answer to the petition on November 12, 2009. See Docket No.

15. Petitioner filed a reply to the answer to the petition on

January 4, 2010. See Docket No. 18. 

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 10
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 The alien record at Exhibit A indicates both that Petitioner

is a native and citizen of Mexico and that he is a native of the

Philippines and a citizen of Mexico.

-2-

1. Procedural History

Petitioner is a native of the Philippines, born in

December of 1974. See Answer, Ex. A. Petitioner’s mother and

Mr. Harold Anderson, who served in the United States Navy, were

married in 1975. Petitioner was admitted to the United States

as an immigrant, on or about February 16, 1978, at or near

Anchorage, Alaska. See id., Ex. A.1 At some point Petitioner

obtained the status of a lawful permanent resident. See id.,

Exh. F. 

On or about November 26, 2003, Petitioner was convicted

by the Maricopa County Superior Court on a felony count of sale

or transportation of methamphetamine. See id., Ex. C.

Petitioner was sentenced to five years imprisonment pursuant to

this conviction. See id., Ex. C. On the same date Petitioner

was also convicted by the Maricopa County Superior Court on one

felony count of weapons misconduct. See id., Ex. C. Pursuant

to this conviction, Petitioner was sentenced to a concurrent

term of two and a half years imprisonment. See id., Ex. C.

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a

Notice to Appear on June 19, 2007, charging Petitioner was

removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)), i.e.,

because Petitioner was an alien who had been convicted of an

offense of trafficking in a controlled substance. Id., Exh. D.

The Notice to Appear also charged Petitioner was removable

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 237(a)(2)(B), because he had been

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 10
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 “Evidence of foreign birth, however, gives rise to a rebuttable

presumption of alienage, and the burden then shifts to the petitioner

to prove citizenship.” Scales v. I.N.S., 232 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th

Cir. 2000).

-3-

convicted of a crime related to a firearm. Id., Exh. D. 

On January 23, 2008, Petitioner submitted written

pleadings denying all factual allegations and charges of

removability in the Notice to Appear. See id., Ex. E.

Petitioner claimed he was not an alien subject to removal

because he acquired citizenship from his father, Harold

Anderson. See id., Ex. E. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

considered this claim and found there was no evidence that

Harold Anderson was Petitioner’s biological father. The IJ

found Petitioner had established only that Harold Anderson was

Petitioner’s stepfather. See id., Exh. F. The IJ determined

that, because Petitioner had not established a blood

relationship between himself and Harold Anderson, Petitioner had

not established his citizenship pursuant to United States law.

See id., Ex. F. Accordingly, the IJ sustained all the factual

allegations and charges in the Notice to Appear and ordered

Petitioner removed to the Philippines. See id., Ex. G. 

Petitioner timely appealed the IJ’s decision to the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). On July 14, 2008, the BIA

ruled that further evidence was necessary to complete the

record. See id., Ex. H. The BIA remanded the matter back to

the IJ to allow Petitioner to present further evidence of a

blood relationship between Petitioner and Harold Anderson, such

as DNA evidence. See id., Ex. H.2 However, on remand,

Petitioner did not proffer further evidence of a blood

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 10
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 Petitioner asserts in his habeas petition that Mr. Anderson

died in 2000 or 2001.

-4-

relationship with Mr. Anderson.3 Accordingly, the IJ again

ordered Petitioner removed to the Philippines. See id., Ex. I.

On July 29, 2008, Petitioner filed an appeal in the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Docket No. 08-73284). The

appeal was dismissed on December 3, 2008, because Petitioner’s

order of removal was not administratively final. 

 Petitioner timely appealed the IJ’s second decision

ordering him removed from the United States to the BIA. On

January 21, 2009, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s second appeal

and also dismissed his motion to reconsider, rendering the order

of removal administratively final. See id., Ex. J.

However, on or about August 15, 2008, before

Petitioner’s immigration proceedings were administratively

final, he filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

section 2241 in this Court. On September 18, 2008, citing 8

U.S.C. §1252 and Iasu v. Smith, 511 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir.

2007), the Court dismissed the petition for lack of

jurisdiction. See Docket No. 3. 

On January 27, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s decision dismissing his habeas

petition, citing Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708 (9th

Cir. 2008), as authority for the proposition that 8 U.S.C. §

1252 did not strip the District Court of jurisdiction to hear

claims in cases where there was no final order of removal. The

Court agreed and reinstated the original habeas petition on

September 22, 2009, although Petitioner’s order of removal had

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 10
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-

become administratively final on January 21, 2009. See Docket

No. 6. 

On June 23, 2009, Petitioner requested a custody

redetermination hearing pursuant to Casas-Castrillon v. DHS, 535

F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008). See id., Ex. K. A bond hearing was

conducted July 2, 2009. The IJ then ordered Petitioner’s

release upon a posting of a $10,000 bond. On January 26, 2009,

Petitioner sought review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

of the IJ’s decision requiring he post bond in order to be

released from custody. Petitioner, through counsel, filed his

opening brief in support of his Petitioner for Review in the

Ninth Circuit on November 5, 2009. See id., Ex. L. See also

Ninth Circuit Docket No. 09-70249. The answering brief in that

matter is due on February 11, 2009. In his petition for review

before the Ninth Circuit Petitioner argues, inter alia, that the

order of removal is improper because Petitioner is a United

States citizen through his father, Harold Anderson. Answer,

Exh. L.

In his section 2241 habeas petition pending before this

Court, Petitioner contends he is not properly in ICE custody

because he is a United States citizen. In support of this

argument Petitioner cites Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.

2000). Petitioner acknowledges he has an appeal pending in the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which appeal includes the issue

of his citizenship. 

Respondent asserts the Court does not have jurisdiction

to adjudicate a citizenship claim following the issuance of a

final administrative decision finding the petitioner removable

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 10
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-

and that the petitioner is not a citizen. Respondent argues

that, because Petitioner is now subject to a final order of

removal, the only available review of his citizenship claim is

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). Respondent contends the

Court may not decide the merits of Petitioner’s detention

because Petitioner’s argument regarding the validity of his

detention is predicated on his claim of citizenship.

2. Analysis

Respondent argues:

Petitioner is not entitled to immediate

release. Since the filing of his habeas

petition, his administrative proceedings have

terminated and he is now under a final order

of removal. In addition, his Petition should

be dismissed because Petitioner has filed a

brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

in support of his Petition for Review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of

removal. In that brief Petitioner, through

counsel, argues at length the very issue of

his claim of United States citizenship. That

court alone now must make this determination.

Petitioner is now being detained pursuant to an order

of removal which is administratively final, the propriety of

which he has appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Section 106(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 amended 8 U.S.C. §

1252 to prevent the District Courts from entertaining a “claim

arising from or relating to the implementation or operation of

an order of removal pursuant to section 1225(b)(1) of this

title.” Subsequent to the REAL ID Act, the District Courts have

jurisdiction over a section 2241 petition only to consider the

merits of the petitioner’s claim that his detention, rather than

the validity of the petitioner’s order of removal, violates

federal statutes or his constitutional rights. See

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 6 of 10
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-

Arreola-Arreola v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 956, 964-65 (9th Cir.

2004); Moallin v. Cangemi, 427 F. Supp. 2d 908, 920 (D. Minn.

2006). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that

the District Courts have section 2241 jurisdiction only if the

issue of petitioner’s detention is distinct from the issue of

the propriety of their removal. See Nadarajah v. Gonzalez, 443

F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Federal statutes provide an individual “may have such

nationality claim decided only as provided in this paragraph

[(section 1252(b)(5))].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(C) (2005 & Supp.

2009). Section 1252 specifies that, if a section 2241

petitioner’s claim for relief is predicated on a claim that they

are a United States citizen, the Circuit Court of Appeals may

either adjudicate the claim or transfer the matter to the

District Court if the appellate court finds that “a genuine

issue of material fact about petitioner’s nationality is

presented.” Id. 1252(b)(5)(A) & (B). See also Iasu v. Smith,

511 F.3d 881, 892 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007); Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303

F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2002); Omolo v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 404,

406 (5th Cir. 2005) (concluding the District Court lacked

jurisdiction to review a nationality claim raised in habeas

proceedings by an alien whose order of removal was

administratively final). 

Petitioner’s case is now distinguishable from the case

upon which he relied when seeking reconsideration of the Court’s

decision dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. See

Carrillo-Loano v. Stolc, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2009 WL 3818841,

at *3-4 (D. Ari.) Compare Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 7 of 10
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

-8-

708, 711 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing a petition challenging

detention prior to the issuance of a final order of removal and

concluding that when there was no final order of removal

jurisdiction was not precluded by the REAL ID Act). Petitioner

now seeks adjudication in this Court of a citizenship claim,

after a final order of removal has been issued. Deliberating

the merits of Petitioner’s claim by this Court at this time

would duplicate the effort of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

which is currently considering the exact issue in Petitioner’s

appeal of his order of removal and his detention.

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

recently concluded, in a case wherein the facts are similar to

Petitioner’s, i.e., where the petitioner could not establish

that there was a blood relationship with the citizen father,

that the petitioner was not a United States citizen. See

Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937, 938-39 (2009), cert.

denied, 78 U.S.L.W. 3184 (Jan. 11, 2010).

Petitioner’s case is also distinguishable from the case

he cites as warranting relief. In Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159

(9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit found that there was an

“existing marital relationship between one of the biological

parents and the stepparent at the time the child was born so

that the child was not considered to be illegitimate or born out

of wedlock and was therefore not barred from establishing

citizenship under 8 U.S.C. §1401(g).” Martinez-Madera, 559 F.3d

at 940 (emphasis added). See also Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales,

401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner’s mother, a

Philippine citizen at the time of Petitioner’s birth, did not

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 8 of 10
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

-9-

marry his United States citizen father until after he was born,

although Mr. Anderson is listed on Petitioner’s birth

certificate as his father. See Petition at 4.

3. Conclusion

Petitioner is now being detained pursuant to a final

order of removal. The claim Petitioner seeks to raise in this

Court as a basis for his release from detention, i.e., that he

is a United States citizen, is currently being considered by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the

issue pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Anderson’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and 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.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter,

the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a

response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules

of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation

may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. 

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 9 of 10
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

-10-

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 10th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01525-JWS Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 10 of 10