Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01063/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01063-0/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

- 1 - 08cv1063 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERTA GARCIA-GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv1063 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

ADRIANA ROSAS-CARRANZA, in her

official capacity, et al.,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Request for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.

# 2). 

Background

On June 16, 2008, Petitioner Berta Garcia-Gonzalez initiated this action by filing the “Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” (“Complaint”) (Doc.

# 1). The Complaint alleges that “Petitioner was taken into custody, paroled into the United States

under 8 U.S.C. 1182 . . . and then released by the Department of Homeland Security’s United States

Customs and Border division on or around May 9, 2008. Petitioner’s parole was valid until June 8,

2008.” Complaint, ¶ 2. The Complaint alleges that on June 6, 2008, Petitioner filed an application

for political asylum pursuant to section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8

U.S.C. 1158. Id., ¶ 3. The Complaint alleges that on June 13, 2008, Respondent Adriana RosasCarranza “issued a Warrant for Arrest of Alien directing any officer of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service to take Petitioner into custody.” Id., ¶ 5. The Complaint alleges that,

Case 3:08-cv-01063-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 06/17/08 Page 1 of 5
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 - 08cv1063 WQH (RBB)

“[a]ccording to Officer Rosas-Carranza, Petitioner would be detained for an unknown period of time,

but would be given a ‘credible fear’ interview regarding her request for asylum, however Petitioner

would not be allowed to have the presence of counsel during the interview.” Id., ¶ 21. The Complaint

alleges that “[t]he process by which Officer Rosas-Carranza wants Petitioner to request political

asylum is under INA § 235,” even though Petitioner filed for political asylum under section 208. Id.,

¶ 22. The Complaint alleges that “Petitioner is not afforded the right to have counsel present” at the

credible fear interview if her asylum application were processed under section 235 “as she would if

her asylum application were processed under INA § 208.” Id.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for violations of Petitioner’s rights to substantive and

procedural due process. In support of both causes of action, the Complaint alleges that the “detention

and forcing of Petitioner to undergo the asylum process under INA § 235 rather than INA § 208

violates Petitioner’s right to substantive and procedural due process by preventing her from having

counsel present during her application for asylum, and affording her time to prepare to present her

case.” Id., ¶¶ 25, 28. The Complaint requests that the Court “Grant the writ of habeas corpus;” issue

an order “enjoining Respondents from detaining Petitioner until her immigration matters are

resolved,” “enjoining Respondents from not rescinding any and all outstanding warrants for arrest of

Petitioner until her immigration matters are resolved,” and “enjoining Respondents from interfering

with petitioner’s request for political asylum under INA § 208;” and award Petitioner reasonable costs

and attorneys’ fees. Complaint, p. 6. 

On June 16, 2008, Petitioner filed the Ex Parte Request for Temporary Restraining Order

(“Request for TRO”). Petitioner contends that “[s]uch a request is made on the grounds that the

United States Customs and Border Protection . . . has indicated that it intends to take Petitioner into

custody, detain her, and undergo a ‘credible fear’ interview outside the presence of counsel, rather

than letting her continue with her application for asylum under the procedure allowed through § 208

[o]f the INA.” Ex Parte Request for TRO, p. 2. Petitioner contends that she has asserted her right to

apply for political asylum under section 208, that “Respondents want to take her back into custody

and have § 235 apply,” and that “[s]uch a detention and application interferes with her due process

rights to apply for political asylum under § 208.” Id. at 4. Petitioner requests that the Court issue a

Case 3:08-cv-01063-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 06/17/08 Page 2 of 5
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 - 08cv1063 WQH (RBB)

TRO preventing Respondents from “detaining [Petitioner] and forcing her to apply for political

asylum under § 23[5].” Id. at 1, 4. 

In support of the Request for TRO, Petitioner submitted the affidavit of her attorney Christian

M. Ramorino. Ramorino attests that on June 9, 2008, “I spoke with Officer Rosas-Carranza after I

faxed her proof that the asylum application had been received at the regional immigration processing

office,” and that Rosas-Carranza “informed me that she wanted to take Petitioner into custody and

have her placed with a credible fear interview.” Ramorino Affidavit, ¶¶ 5, 6. Ramorino attests that

on June 11, 2008, he spoke with Rosas-Carranza and informed her that if she still intended to take

Petitioner into custody and require Petitioner to appear at a credible fear interview without counsel

present, “that I would be seeking a habeas corpus and requesting a restraining order the next day.”

Id., ¶¶ 7, 8. Ramorino attests that on June 13, 2008, “I received a fax that was a Warrant for Arrest

of Alien from Officer Rosas-Carranza directing any officer of the Immigration and Naturalization

Service to take [Petitioner] into custody.” Id., ¶ 9. Petitioner requests that the Court issue a

Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Respondents from taking Petitioner into custody and from

“forcing [Petitioner] to apply for political asylum under § 23[5].” Request for TRO, p. 1, 4. 

Applicable Law

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the issuance of a Temporary 

Restraining Order. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). Rule 65(b) states:

(1) The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to

the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant

before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice

and the reasons why it should not be required.

Id. 

Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act governs the inspection by immigration

officers of aliens at ports-of-entry into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Section 235(b) provides

that if an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States “indicates

either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 [8 USCS § 1158] or a fear of persecution,

Case 3:08-cv-01063-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 06/17/08 Page 3 of 5
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 - 08cv1063 WQH (RBB)

the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A).

Section 208 provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives

in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien’s statues, may apply for asylum in accordance with

this section, or, where applicable, section 235(b).” 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1). 

An alien who is otherwise subject to removal, but indicates an intention to apply for asylum,

shall be “referred for an interview by an asylum officer in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 208.30.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 235.3(b)(iii)(4). 8 C.F.R. 208.30 provides that an asylum officer shall conduct an interview of the

alien to determine whether the “alien has a credible fear of persecution.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.30. “Pending

the credible fear determination by an asylum officer and any review of that determination by an

immigration judge, the alien shall be detained,” unless the alien is paroled, at the discretion of the

Attorney General, pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §

1225(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(iii)(4). Pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act, the Attorney General may, in his discretion, parole an alien into the United States

“temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis.” 8 U.S.C.

1182(d)(5). In cases involving an alien who had been paroled into the United Sates, but whose parole

has expired or is terminated, 

the asylum officer shall proceed in accordance with § 235.3(b) . . . . If such applicant

is found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture based on information elicited

from the asylum interview, an asylum officer may refer the applicant directly to an

immigration judge . . . without conducting a separate credible fear interview pursuant

to § 208.30. If such applicant is not found to have a credible fear based on information

elicited at the asylum interview, an asylum officer will conduct a credible fear

interview and the applicant will be subject to the credible fear process specified in §

208.30(b). 

8 C.F.R. 208.14. 

Ruling of the Court

Petitioner requests that the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Respondents

from taking Petitioner into custody and from “forcing [Petitioner] to apply for political asylum under

§ 23[5].” Request for TRO, p. 1, 4. Petitioner states that her parole was valid until June 8, 2008.

Petitioner’s counsel attests that a warrant for Petitioner’s arrest issued on June 13, 2008. Petitioner

does not state any grounds to challenge the validity of the arrest warrant. The Court notes that the

regulations governing both sections 208 and 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provide that

Case 3:08-cv-01063-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 06/17/08 Page 4 of 5
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 - 08cv1063 WQH (RBB)

the asylum officer has discretion to require the applicant to appear at a credible fear interview.

However, even if Petitioner is correct that requiring her to apply for political asylum under section 235

instead of section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act raises due process concerns, Petitioner

does not state when she will be required to appear for her credible fear interview, that such interview

is imminent, or that she will otherwise suffer immediate and irreparable injury before Respondents

can be heard in opposition as a result of Respondents’ allegedly requiring her to apply for political

asylum under section 235 instead of section 208. The Court concludes that Petitioner fails to provide

“specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable

injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 

Petitioner’s counsel attests that he informed Officer Rosas-Carranza that he would request a

temporary restraining order if Rosas-Carranza maintained the position that she intended to take

Petitioner into custody, and submitted a certificate of service stating that a copy of the Request for

TRO was served upon Respondents and “oral notice to Officer Adriana Rosas-Carranza on 6-13-08.”

Request for TRO, p. 6-7. The Court concludes, however, that the Petitioner’s attorney has failed to

sufficiently “certify in writing any efforts to give notice and the reasons why it should not be

required.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(B). 

Petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements prescribed in Rule 65 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court denies the Request for TRO. 

Conclusion

The Ex Parte Request for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 2) is DENIED.

DATED: June 17, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01063-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 06/17/08 Page 5 of 5