Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01709/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01709-0/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

Evvers Rafael Guevara-Moreno, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Michael Chertoff, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1709-PHX-SRB (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Pending before the court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Doc. #1.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner, who is a native and citizen of Nicaragua, entered the United States pursuant

to an immigrant visa in 1979. Doc. #17, Exh. 1. In 2004, Petitioner was convicted in

California of two theft offenses, one of which was a felony, and possession of cocaine, also

a felony. Doc. #17, Exh. 2-4. Following the convictions, the Department of Homeland

Security (the government) filed a Notice to Appear against Petitioner alleging that he was

subject to removal from the United States because he was convicted of two crimes involving

moral turpitude and a controlled substance offense. Doc. #17, Exh. 5. Petitioner was served

with the notice on March 6, 2006. Id. Although the Notice of Custody Determination dated

March 1, 2006, shows that Petitioner initially had a bond set for $15,000, it further shows

Case 2:08-cv-01709-SRB Document 19 Filed 04/28/09 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 -

that the District Director redetermined custody the next day and ordered Petitioner to be held

without bond. Doc. #17, Exh. 13. To the court’s knowledge, he has been detained since that

date. 

On March 15, 2006, the government withdrew the allegation of removal based on the

theft convictions and relied solely on the controlled substance offense. Doc. #17 at 3. On

May 9, 2006, an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted Petitioner’s application for cancellation of

removal. Doc. #17, Exh. 6. The government appealed that decision and on October 27,

2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ’s decision, denied the

application for cancellation of removal and remanded to the IJ for entry of an order of

removal. Doc. #17, Exh. 7. On November 28, 2006, the IJ ordered Petitioner to be removed

from the United States to Nicaragua. Doc. #17, Exh. 8. The BIA subsequently dismissed

Petitioner’s appeal of the removal order on February 27, 2007. Doc. #17, Exh. 9. 

On March 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals. Doc. #17, Exh 10. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the BIA to

address a particular issue, after which the BIA again dismissed the appeal. Doc. #17, Exh.

11. Petitioner again filed a Petition for Review in the Ninth Circuit on May 20, 2008. Doc.

#17, Exh. 12. On the same day, the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary stay of removal. Doc.

#17, Exh. 16. The case remains pending before the Ninth Circuit and, according to that

court’s docket, Respondents’ answering brief is due on May 8, 2009. 

Through counsel, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court

on September 15, 2008. Doc. #1. Petitioner alleges that the government is illegally detaining

him in that it has not provided him with a hearing to determine his eligibility for release on

bond. He asks the court to direct Respondents to conduct a prompt custody hearing. On

November 4, 2008, Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. Doc. #17. Petitioner has not filed a reply.

 

Case 2:08-cv-01709-SRB Document 19 Filed 04/28/09 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 -

DISCUSSION

Respondents argue in their response that Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing

because he has not requested one under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1).

Respondents contend that because Petitioner has not made the request for a hearing, his

habeas petition should be denied for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Respondents further argue that his continued detention is lawful because it is not indefinite.

Two recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, Casas-Castrillon v. DHS, 535

F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) and Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) address

the detention of aliens pending judicial review of their removal orders. The cases held that

the detention of aliens awaiting judicial review of their removal orders is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1226(a). Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 948; Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1062. That

statute authorizes the Attorney General to detain an alien “pending a decision on whether the

alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In Casas-Castrillon, the

court further held that because prolonged detention of such aliens without adequate

procedural protections would raise serious constitutional concerns, “§ 1226(a) must be

construed as requiring the Attorney General to provide the alien” with a bond hearing.

Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 951(emphasis in original). An alien detained under these

circumstances is “entitled to release on bond unless ‘the government establishes that he is a

flight risk or will be a danger to the community.’” Id. (citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S.

348, 363 (1996)). Absent evidence that the government has already afforded a habeas

petitioner under these circumstances a bond hearing that complies with these requirements,

the petitioner should be released unless the government provides such a hearing within 60

days. Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 952.

Respondents’ contention that the petition should be dismissed because Petitioner

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is without merit. When Petitioner was first

taken into custody, he was ordered “released under bond in the amount of $15,000.00.” Doc.

#17, Exh. 13. The following day, the District Director reconsidered his custody status and

directed Petitioner to be detained with no bond. Id. Petitioner then requested a change in his

Case 2:08-cv-01709-SRB Document 19 Filed 04/28/09 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 -

custody status pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1), the provision that Respondents claim

Petitioner failed to utilize. Doc. #17, Exh. 14. That request was denied by the IJ after he

concluded he was without jurisdiction to decide the issue. Id. Thus, when Petitioner

attempted to do what Respondents’ claim he failed to do, the IJ found he lacked jurisdiction

over the issue. The court finds that Respondents’ contention that he failed to utilize

administrative remedies to challenge his detention is not supported by the evidence.

Moreover, Respondents’ concede that the statutory exhaustion requirement under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) applies to judicial review of removal orders, not to the review of

detention orders. Doc. #17 at 9. Respondents provide no on-point legal authority requiring

administrative exhaustion under the circumstances presented here. Instead they argue that

principles of “prudential exhaustion” should apply here. The court disagrees. Absent some

direct authority establishing that Petitioner was required to do more than he did before

seeking habeas review, the court finds Respondents’ exhaustion argument unpersuasive. 

Regarding Respondents’ contention that Petitioner is being lawfully held despite not

receiving an individualized bond hearing, Casas-Castrillon holds otherwise. As explained

above, that case and Prieto-Romero held that the detention of aliens awaiting judicial review

of their removal orders is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at

948; Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1062. That statute “must be construed as requiring the

Attorney General to provide the alien” with an “individualized determination of his

dangerousness or flight risk....” Casas-Castrillon, 535 F3d at 951 (emphasis in original).

Petitioner has been in custody for over two years. His case has been pending before

the Ninth Circuit, for a second time, for nearly a year and the answering brief still hasn’t been

filed. He is in a similar position as the petitioner in Casas-Castrillon, in that he is awaiting

a judicial resolution of his removal order from the Ninth Circuit. As such, he is entitled to

a bond hearing. The court will therefore recommend that his petition be granted unless he

receives a bond hearing within 60 days.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) be granted as follows:

Case 2:08-cv-01709-SRB Document 19 Filed 04/28/09 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 -

That the District Court Judge order Respondent to release Petitioner, unless within 60

days of the District Court's Order, Respondent provides a hearing to Petitioner before an

Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless Respondent establishes that he

is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community;

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); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely 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 to timely 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 of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01709-SRB Document 19 Filed 04/28/09 Page 5 of 5