Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01592/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01592-0/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

TERMPSREF

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric Jallayou, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1592-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Eric Jallayou (A094-639-515), who is represented by counsel, has filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1), a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #2),

and Motions for Joinder of Parties (Docs. #4 and #9). The Court will deny the motions

without prejudice and require Respondents to answer the Petition.

I. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Liberia, who was admitted to the United States as

a refugee on April 9, 2004. On March 19, 2009, Petitioner was taken into custody by

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C.

§§1182(a)(7)(A)(i) and (a)(2)(A)(i)(I). An immigration judge subsequently terminated the

removal proceedings because Petitioner’s refugee status had not been terminated. Petitioner

continues to be detained, however, because he failed to apply for and acquire lawful

permanent residence within one year of his entry in the United States as required by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1159(a). Under § 1159(a), a refugee who has been physically present in the U.S. for at

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 11 Filed 08/14/09 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

least one year and has not acquired permanent resident status must “return or be returned to

the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and examination for

admission to the United States as an immigrant.” According to Petitioner, ICE interprets 8

U.S.C. § 1159(a) to authorize the indefinite detention of any refugee who has not become a

lawful permanent resident within one year of entry. Petitioner’s I-485 Application for

Adjustment of Status and I-602 Application by Refugee for Waiver of Grounds for

Excludability are currently pending before the Customs and Immigration Service. 

On May 1, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for custody redetermination. An

immigration judge initially granted Petitioner’s motion, but later held that she was without

jurisdiction to redetermine Petitioner’s custody under § 1159(a). On July 16, 2009, the Board

of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s jurisdictional decision and

dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner alleges that he has, therefore, exhausted his

administrative remedies.

Petitioner argues that ICE’s interpretation of § 1159(a) violates the Constitution of the

United States and the Immigration and Nationality Act and that no statutory or regulatory

authority otherwise exists to authorize his continued detention. Petitioner claims that his

detention violates his Fifth Amendment rights to both substantive and procedural due

process. He also claims that his detention is not authorized by the Immigration and

Nationality Act. Petitioner seeks an order compelling his immediate release from custody.

The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition.

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Petitioner also seeks a an injunction directing Respondents to immediately release him

from detention. Petitioner’s request for expedited release, however, is essentially a

restatement of the ultimate request for relief presented in his Petition. Every habeas corpus

petition necessarily alleges the same basic ground for relief, i.e., that the petitioner is being

detained in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. Only when it is clear on the face of a petition that exceptional circumstances require

immediate review of a petitioner’s claims will consideration of his petition be advanced at

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 11 Filed 08/14/09 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

the expense of prior, pending petitions. Upon the record currently before the Court, it is not

plain that the merits of Petitioner’s claims are so strong as to warrant either expedited

adjudication or immediate release from custody. See In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th

Cir. 2001) (declining to resolve issue of whether a district court has the authority to release

a prisoner pending resolution of a habeas case, but holding that if such authority does exist,

it can only be exercised in an “extraordinary case involving special circumstances”).

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for immediate release will be denied.

III. Motions for Joinder of Parties

In his two Motions for Joinder of Parties, Petitioner seeks to join Kolok Kolok,

George Shondah, Chuang Chol Dong, Donko Buzancic, and Thao Lee as parties to his

habeas corpus petition. Petitioner and the five other detainees are all represented by the

same counsel. They did not, however, file a petition naming themselves as joint petitioners

in a single action. Instead, they each filed separate habeas corpus actions. Rather than

joinder in a single action, it appears that they are seeking consolidation of their separate

actions. Accordingly, the Motions for Joinder of Parties will be denied without prejudice to

the filing of a proper motion to consolidate in compliance with Rule 42(a)(2) of the Local

Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #2) is denied without

prejudice.

(2) Petitioner’s Motions for Joinder of Parties (Docs. #4 and #9) are denied

without prejudice to the filing of a motion to consolidate.

(3) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Petition, and this Order

upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the

civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court also must send by certified mail

a copy of the Summons, Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney General

pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and to Respondents pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2).

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 11 Filed 08/14/09 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

(4) Respondents must answer the Petition within 20 days of the date of service.

Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing

cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Petitioner may file a reply within 20 days from the

date of service of the answer.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 11th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 11 Filed 08/14/09 Page 4 of 4