Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02246/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02246-0/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

 Alternatively, he requests that his removal to China be executed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sheng Qiang Liu, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2246-PHX-PGR (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On October 26, 2009, Petitioner Sheng Qiang Liu filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that immigration officials are holding

him in detention pending his removal from the United States to China, but that his removal

is not reasonably foreseeable. Doc. #1. Petitioner seeks an immediate release under

supervision on the grounds that his indefinite detention is not authorized by law because

there is no prospect that he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.1

 See

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is no reasonable likelihood that a

foreign government will accept an alien’s return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS

may not detain the alien for more than the presumptively reasonable period of six months).

Case 2:09-cv-02246-PGR Document 10 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

In an order filed on January 14, 2010, the District Judge reviewed the petition and directed

Respondents to file an answer. Doc. #3. 

On February 2, 2010, Respondents filed a Notice to the Court and Suggestion of

Mootness in which they assers that Petitioner was released under an Order of Supervision on

January 22, 2010 Doc. #8. In the filing, Respondent provides a copy of the Order of

Supervision establishing that Petitioner has been released from custody under the terms of

the order. Id. Because Respondents’ evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has obtained the

relief he sought in his petition, this action is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773,

775 (9th Cir. 1991) (alien’s habeas petition challenging the length of his detention pending

deportation was rendered moot when petitioner was released from custody and reparoled into

the United States). The court will therefore recommend that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

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 14 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 14 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

//

//

Case 2:09-cv-02246-PGR Document 10 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

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

DATED this 19th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02246-PGR Document 10 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 3