Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02983/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02983-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS VALDEZ BERMUDEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 07-2983 VRW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS 

Petitioner, an alien detained on behalf of the United States Immigration

and Custom Enforcement ("ICE") at the Kern County Correctional Facility in

Bakersfield, California, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC § 2241

challenging the denial of his application for release on bail pending removal

proceedings. 

Per order filed on July 24, 2007, the court found that the petition appears

to state a colorable claim under § 2241 for denial of due process and ordered

respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

Respondent filed an answer to the order to show cause, but petitioner did not file

a traverse. 

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 11 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 5
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

I

 In 1984, petitioner entered the United States as an immigrant. In 1985, he

was convicted of credit card forgery and, in 1994, he was convicted of grand

theft. In 2001, he was convicted of second-degree burglary and attempted

forgery and sentenced to prison for two years. In 2002, he was convicted of

forgery and receiving stolen property and received three-year consecutive

sentences for each offense.

 In 2002, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS")

placed petitioner in removal proceedings by serving him with a notice to appear. 

Petitioner was charged with being removable because he had been convicted of 

aggravated felonies and crimes involving moral turpitude.

On May 1, 2006, the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied petitioner's request

for relief from removal and found him to be an aggravated felon. The IJ ordered

petitioner removed and denied him release on bond.

On February 9, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed

the order of removal and the denial of release on bail pending removal

proceedings. 

On February 23, 2007, petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit and

obtained a temporary stay of removal. 

On May 10, 2007, petitioner was served with the ICE's decision to

continue to detain him pending review of the administrative order of removal by

the Ninth Circuit.

On May 29, 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under § 2241, arguing that he is entitled to a full bail hearing because

none of his convictions was an aggravated felony or crime involving moral

turpitude.

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 11 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 5
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

On July 25, 2007, the IJ denied petitioner's motion for a bond

"redetermination," finding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain such a request

because petitioner had been convicted of an aggravated felony, namely a forgery

with a sentence of at least one year.

On July 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay of removal pending its

review of the administrative order of removal.

On September 13, 2007, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner's motion for

release on bail or on his own recognizance pending the court's review of the

administrative order of removal. The Ninth Circuit noted that it lacked the

authority to grant such relief.

II

Petitioner claims he was denied his due process right to a full hearing on

his application for bail pending removal proceedings. Among other things, he

alleges that the IJ did not properly consider petitioner's permanent resident status

and mitigating evidence. He also argues that none of his state convictions

constitutes an aggravated felony or crime of moral turpitude.

Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC § 1226(c),

directs the Attorney General to take into custody any alien who is removable

from this country because he has been convicted of one of a specified set of

crimes. The alien may not be released during removal proceedings, which

includes judicial review of the administrative removal order. It matters not that

the alien is not a danger to society or a flight risk. See 8 USC § 1226(c)(1). 

Petitioner is being detained under § 1226(c)(1) based on his conviction

under California Penal Code section 475, entitled "Forgery; possession or receipt

of items; intent to defraud," for which he received more than one year in prison. 

The IJ and BIA found that the conviction constituted a qualifying aggravated

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 11 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 5
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

felony under 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(R). Petitioner's challenge to that

determination, ie, whether his state conviction constitutes an aggravated felony,

is properly before the Ninth Circuit and may not be considered by this court. See

Morales-Alegria v Gonzales, 449 F3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir 2006) (holding that

conviction for forgery under California Penal Code section 476(c) is an

aggravated felony for purposes of removal proceedings).

Petitioner may properly bring in this court via habeas his claim of denial

of his due process right to a bail hearing. But unfortunately for him, the claim is

without merit. The Supreme Court has held that the government may detain an

alien who concedes he is deportable under § 1226(c) without conducting an

individualized bail hearing pending removal proceedings. See Demore v Kim,

538 US 510, 522-23, 531 (2003). "Detention during removal proceedings is a

constitutionally permissible part of that process." Id at 531 (citations omitted). 

 Although petitioner here claims he is not covered by § 1226(c), the court

is satisfied that the individualized review he has received (and is receiving)

adequately safeguards against his being "improperly detained pursuant to §

1226(c)." Id at 514 n3. After ICE takes an individual into custody and orders

him mandatorily detained under § 1226(c), a "Joseph hearing" is immediately

provided if the detainee claims that he is not covered by § 1226(c). Id. At the

hearing, the detainee may avoid mandatory detention by demonstrating that he is

not an alien, was not convicted of the predicate crime, or that ICE is otherwise

substantially unlikely to establish that he is in fact subject to mandatory

detention. Id (citations omitted). A Joseph hearing provides the detainee "the

opportunity to offer evidence and legal authority on the question whether [ICE]

has properly included him within a category that is subject to mandatory

detention." In re Joseph, 22 I & N Dec 799 (BIA 1999). If the IJ determines that

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 11 Filed 01/29/08 Page 4 of 5
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

the detainee does fall within§1226(c), then he is without authority to conduct an

individualized bond determination. See 8 CFR § 1003/19(h)(1)(i)(E).

Here, the record shows that the IJ conducted a formal hearing and found

that petitioner was removable and subject to mandatory detention under §

1226(c) because petitioner's 2002 state forgery conviction constituted a

qualifying aggravated felony. Petitioner appealed, but the BIA upheld the

decision of the IJ. It simply cannot be said that the administrative review process

afforded petitioner denied him due process by failing to safeguard adequately

against his being "improperly detained pursuant to § 1226(c)." Kim, 538 US at

514 n3. After all, his claim that he is not covered by § 1226(c) is even subject to

judicial review by the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas

relief on his denial of due process claim.

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED.

The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\OTHER.07\Bermudez2.denial.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 11 Filed 01/29/08 Page 5 of 5