Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01176/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01176-0/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

Mehar Khurram Shahzad, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 13-01176 PHX DGC MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

)

John Gurule, Field Office )

Director, Arizona, )

 ) 

Respondent. )

_____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL:

On June 11, 2013, Mr. Mehar Shahzad (“Petitioner”), who

is pro se in this matter, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging his continued detention

by Respondent violates federal law and his constitutional

rights. Respondent filed a Response in Opposition to Petition

for Habeas Corpus (“Response”) (Doc. 11) on August 19, 2013.

Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. 12) to the response on September

12, 2013. 

I Background

Petitioner is a thirty-five-year-old native and citizen

of Pakistan. See Answer, Exh. 1. On July 24, 2005, in

Pakistan, Petitioner married a naturalized United States

citizen. Id., Exh. 2. On December 13, 2005, Petitioner’s wife

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 8
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-

filed a Petition for Alien Relative on Petitioner’s behalf. The

petition was approved on April 3, 2006. Id., Exh. 2. On

December 11, 2007, Petitioner was admitted to the United States

as lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) at San Francisco,

California. Id., Exh. 1 & Exh. 4. 

On December 2, 2009, Petitioner was convicted in the

California Superior Court, Alameda County, on one count of rape

and one count of committing a lewd act upon a child. As a

result of these convictions Petitioner was sentenced to a total

of four years in prison. Id., Exh. 5. 

On June 26, 2012, the government placed Petitioner in

removal proceedings by serving him with a Notice to Appear.

Id., Exh. 6. At that time Petitioner was in the custody of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Id., Exh. 6. The

Notice to Appear charged Petitioner with removability pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), i.e., that Petitioner

was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and a crime of

violence. On August 8, 2012, the government also charged

Petitioner with removability, i.e., that Petitioner was an alien

convicted of an aggravated felony, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1101(a)(43)(A) and § 101(a)(43)(A) of the INA, because he had

been convicted of the murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor.

Id., Exh. 7. 

On October 31, 2012, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

sustained the charges of removal and ordered Petitioner removed

to Pakistan. Id., Exh. 8. Petitioner waived his right to

appeal this decision and, accordingly, the Order of Removal

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 2 of 8
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-

became final at that time. Id., Exh. 8. 

On November 1, 2012, the government sought travel

documents, necessary to effect Petitioner’s removal to Pakistan,

from the Consulate General of Pakistan in Los Angeles,

California. Id., Exh. 9. On November 27, 2012, Consular Attachè

Shahid Hussain Khan sent the government a letter stating that

the request was being processed. Id., Exh. 10. 

On December 7, 2012, the government served Petitioner

with a Notice to Alien of File Custody Review. Id., Exh. 11. 

On December 24, 2012, Consular Officer Khan sent the

government a letter requesting a meeting with Petitioner. Id.,

Exh. 12. On January 4, 2013, Dr. Huhammad Khalid Ejza from the

Pakistani Consulate interviewed Petitioner at the Florence

Detention Center. Id., Exh. 13. On January 14, 2013, the

government requested assistance in obtaining travel documents

from the United States Headquarters Travel Document Unit

(“HQTDU”). Id., Exh. 13. On January 15, 16, and 17, 2013, the

government was again in contact with Consular Officer Khan.

Id., Exh. 13. Consular Officer Khan stated he would inform the

government if a travel document was received. On February 18

and 26, 2013, the government again contacted Consular Officer

Khan and was told Khan would contact the government at a later

date. Id., Exh. 13. 

On February 22, 2013, the government served Petitioner

with its Decision to Continue Detention. The government

determined Petitioner would remain detained and that

jurisdiction of the case would be transferred to the

headquarters Post Order Custody Review (“POCR”) unit on or about

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 3 of 8
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-

April 29, 2013. Id., Exh. 14. 

On March 5, 2013, the government contacted Consular

Officer Khan and was told Khan’s office was awaiting a response

from Pakistan regarding the travel document. Id., Exh. 13, ¶

12. On March 11, 2013, HQTDU advised the government they were

in communications with Minister Rathore at the Pakistani Embassy

in Washington, D.C., regarding the pending request for a travel

document. The Pakistani embassy advised the government that

Petitioner had a police clearance and valid identification

number from Pakistan. Id., Exh. 13. On March 26, 2013, and on

April 1, 12, and 26, 2013, additional phone calls were made to

Consular Officer Khan. The government was told the request for

a travel document remained pending. Id., Exh. 13. 

On April 29, 2013, the government submitted a 180-day

Headquarters Case Management Unit checklist to the POCR unit in

Washington, D.C. Id., Exh. 13. 

On May 2, 2013, Consular Officer Khan informed the

government that Petitioner’s travel document was pending. Id.,

Exh. 13. On May 9, 2013, the government sent an email to the

Pakistani Desk Officer at the United States Department of State,

requesting her assistance in securing the travel document. Id.,

Exh. 13. 

On May 10, 2013, the government served Petitioner with

its Decision to Continue Detention. The government determined

Petitioner would remain detained, that ICE was working with the

Pakistani government to procure a travel document and that

Petitioner’s removal to Pakistan was expected in the reasonably

foreseeable future. Id., Exh. 15. 

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 4 of 8
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-

Between May 29, 2013, and July 23, 2013, additional

phone calls were made to Consular Officer Khan and the

government was told the request for a travel document remained

pending. Id., Exh. 13. 

On June 11, 2013, Petitioner filed his habeas petition.

On July 24, 2013, the government contacted Consular

Officer Khan and was told a response from the Pakistani

government regarding Petitioner’s travel documents had not been

received. Mr. Khan also informed the government that he had

submitted a dispatch to Pakistan inquiring as to the status of

the travel document. Id., Exh. 13. 

On July 31, 2013, the government served Petition with

another Decision to Continue Detention. Id., Exh. 13. 

On August 15 and 16, 2013, the government again

contacted to Consular Officer Khan for the status of the travel

document and was told the issuance of the travel document was

pending. 

 II Analysis

The Court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a

Department of Homeland Security detainee who is “in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner is a lawful

permanent resident who has been ordered removed from the United

States and whose order of removal is administratively final.

Section 231 of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231, governs the

detention of aliens whose order of removal is administratively

final. 

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 5 of 8
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-

Federal law provides: “Except as otherwise provided in

this section, when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney

General shall remove the alien from the United States within a

period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the ‘removal

period’).” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). In Zadvydas v. Davis, the

United States Supreme Court held section 1231 could not be read

to authorize the potentially indefinite detention of a removable

alien. The Supreme Court concluded due process concerns were

implicated by the detention of an alien, pending their removal

from the United States, for more than six months after the

expiration of the removal period. See 533 U.S. 678, 121 S. Ct.

2491 (2001). 

In Zadvydas the United States Supreme Court also held

that, absent special circumstances, resident aliens who

demonstrate that they are unlikely to be removed in the

reasonably foreseeable future, primarily because no country will

accept them, cannot be indefinitely detained pending their

detention. See 533 U.S. at, 121 S. Ct. at. The Court construed

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), authorizing detention beyond the

ninety-day removal period, to limit such detention to a period

reasonably necessary to effect removal.

Petitioner’s order of removal became administratively

final on October 31, 2012. The 90-day removal period expired

January 28, 2013. The six-month presumptively reasonable postremoval period term of detention expired July 27, 2013.

Accordingly, at this time Petitioner has been held for two

months beyond the presumptively reasonable post-removal period.

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 6 of 8
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-

[In Zadvydas t]he Court determined that for

six months following the beginning of the

removal period an alien’s detention was

presumptively authorized. [] However, after

that period, “once the alien provides good

reason to believe that there is no

significant likelihood of removal in the

reasonably foreseeable future, the Government

must respond with evidence sufficient to

rebut that showing” in order to continue to

detain the alien. [] 

Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1115 (9th 2010) (internal

citations omitted).

Petitioner’s removal is not indefinite, as Pakistan has

not refused his repatriation, nor at this time has his detention

by Respondent been sufficiently lengthy to implicate his due

process rights. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to

federal habeas relief pursuant to section 2241. See, e.g.,

Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2008).

III Conclusion

Petitioner is not entitled to relief pursuant to

section 2241 because, although he has been detained for two

months beyond the presumptively reasonable post-removal period,

he has not established that his detention is potentially

indefinite such as to implicate his right to due process.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Shahzad’sPetition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied.

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

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 7 of 8
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-

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. 

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 23rd day of September, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-01176-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/24/13 Page 8 of 8