Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01922/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01922-0/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

Feng Chen, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Kip Crowler, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-1922-PHX-SRB (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Feng Chen filed a 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 to

China. He argued that he was entitled to release from custody because his detention with no

prospect that his removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future was not

authorized by law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The government argued

in its response that the passage of time alone is insufficient to meet Chen’s burden of

showing that no likelihood of removal exists in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that

the government has made continuous efforts to remove him during his detention. The

government further contended that Chen had not met his burden in showing that there is no

substantial likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. On January 19, 2010,

Respondents filed a Notice to the Court and Suggestion of Mootness, notifying the Court that

Chen had been released under an Order of Supervision on March 10, 2009. See Doc. #20.

Case 2:08-cv-01922-SRB Document 21 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Feng Chen’s Petitioner for

Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied as moot (Doc. #1).

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(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have seven

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 22nd day of January, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01922-SRB Document 21 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2