Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00481/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00481-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andres Barrera-Flores, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

James Schomig, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-481-PHX-SRB (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Petitioner Andres Barrera-Flores has filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #20). On March 31, 2010, Respondents

filed their Response in Opposition (Doc. #40). Despite having the opportunity to do so,

Petitioner has not filed a reply.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. He entered the United States in 1978 and

became a lawful permanent resident in 1990. On October 4, 2004, Petitioner was convicted

of trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of § 37-2732B(a)(4)(A) of the Idaho Code.

Petitioner was required to serve a minimum of three years in prison on a fifteen-year

sentence.

On June 13, 2007, Petitioner was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE). Petitioner was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. §

1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony, and under 8

Case 2:09-cv-00481-SRB Document 41 Filed 05/24/10 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 - 2 -

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) as an alien who has been convicted of a controlled substances

offense. Both charges were based on the same October 4, 2004 Idaho conviction. On

February 27, 2008, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation

of removal and entered an order for his removal to Mexico. On July 1, 2008, the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the IJ’s finding that Petitioner’s Idaho conviction

qualified as an aggravated felony. Nonetheless, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal,

holding that he was removable as an alien convicted of a controlled substances offense, and

finding that he did not merit cancellation of removal.

On July 11, 2008, Petitioner filed a petition for review from the BIA’s decision with

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Barrera-Flores v. Holder, No.

08-72999. On October 31, 2008, the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner’s motion to stay his

removal. See id. On February 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition for review

and, on March 29, 2010, the mandate issued, thus terminating the temporary stay of removal.

See id.

On September 24, 2008, after filing his petition for review with the Ninth Circuit,

citing Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008), Petitioner

requested that the IJ release him on bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On November 3,

2008, the IJ found that Petitioner was a danger to society and a flight risk and, therefore,

denied his request for discretionary release on bond. On February 6, 2009, the BIA affirmed

the IJ’s detention decision.

On June 3, 2009, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with this Court. In his Amended Petition, Petitioner asserts that

the IJ should have held the Government to its burden of proving ineligibility for release on

bond by clear and convincing evidence (Claim One). Petitioner also claims that the

Government failed to present sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that he

is a danger to society and that it failed to present any evidence that he is a flight risk (Claims

Two and Three). Finally, Petitioner claims that the IJ and the BIA improperly failed to

Case 2:09-cv-00481-SRB Document 41 Filed 05/24/10 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 - 3 -

consider the length of his detention in assessing whether the Government satisfied its burden

to prove that Petitioner is a danger to society or a flight risk (Claim Four). Petitioner seeks

an order declaring that his detention is unlawful. He also seeks an order for his immediate

release from detention under conditions set by this Court and an award of attorney’s fees

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

On January 13, 2010, the Court issued an Order dismissing Claims Two, Three, and

Four of Petitioner’s habeas petition and ordered Respondents to answer Claim One.

Respondents filed their Response on March 31, 2010.

DISCUSSION

The apprehension, detention, and release of aliens pending administrative removal

proceedings is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. After administrative removal proceedings have

been completed, however, the detention and release of the alien are governed by 8 U.S.C. §

1231. Section § 1231(a)(1) provides in pertinent part:

(A) In general

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”).

(B) Beginning of period

The removal period begins on the latest of the following:

(i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively final.

(ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of

the removal of the alien, the date of the court’s final order.

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). Since the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner a stay of removal in

connection with his petition for review, the removal period began on March 29, 2010, when

the Ninth Circuit entered its final order on his appeal. See 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii).

Following the entry of an administratively final order of removal, an alien is subject

to mandatory detention during the 90-day removal period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).

Administrative removal proceedings having concluded and a final order of removal having

Case 2:09-cv-00481-SRB Document 41 Filed 05/24/10 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 - 4 -

been entered, Petitioner no longer has a habeas remedy available to him for alleged unlawful

detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 during his administrative removal proceedings. The Court

will, therefore, recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s First Amended Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #20) 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 court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen 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);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to 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 timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00481-SRB Document 41 Filed 05/24/10 Page 4 of 4