Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00947-1/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUANG DIEN LA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al., )

 )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:09-cv-00947-JLT HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE FILE

ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (Doc. 7)

Petitioner, currently in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) and, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. On June 15, 2009,

Petitioner filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge for all

purposes. (Doc. 4).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner, a native of Vietnam and subject to a final order of removal to that country

since November 12, 2008, alleges in the instant petition that he has been in “post-removal order”

ICE detention since that date. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3). Petitioner alleges that his detention pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) is indefinite and violates his substantive and procedural due process rights

Case 1:09-cv-00947-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 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

under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Doc.

1, p. 4). Petitioner also asserts that his detention is in violation of Respondent’s statutory

authority. (Id.). Finally, Petitioner maintains that his detention is punitive in nature and

therefore is an unconstitutional punishment without due process of law. (Id.). 

On June 18, 2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Respondents to

show cause by August 5, 2009 why the instant petition should not be granted. (Doc. 5). On

September 17, 2009, Respondents filed a response to the order to show cause, also requesting a

nunc pro tunc extension of time for filing said response. (Doc. 7). Petitioner filed no response

either to Respondent’s response to the order to show cause or Respondent’s request for a nunc

pro tunc extension of time.

DISCUSSION

In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that he has been detained beyond the six-month

period presumed reasonable in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (2001). 

Respondent contends that Petitioner has failed to show that no reasonable likelihood of removal

exists. The Court agrees with Respondent and therefore denies the petition on the merits.

After an order of removal is issued, the Attorney General shall remove the alien within

ninety days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). The ninety-day period is referred to as the “removal

period.” Id. 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; (iii) if the alien

is detained or confined (except under an immigration process), the date the alien is released from

detention or confinement. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B). During the removal period, ICE is required

to detain the alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). 

However, the removal period “shall be extended...if the alien fails or refuses to make

timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to [his] departure or

conspires or acts to prevent [his] removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). During the extended

removal period, Respondent has the statutory discretion to detain the alien. See id. (“the alien

may remain in detention during such extended period...”). 

Case 1:09-cv-00947-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 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 The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality of the period of post-removal-detention, not the period 1

of post-removal. See Zadvydas, 121 S.Ct. at 2504.

3

In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court found that the habeas corpus statute grants federal courts

the authority to determine whether post-removal-period detention is pursuant to statutory

authority. Id. at 2491. In addition, the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s 1

(“INA”) post-removal-period detention statute does not permit indefinite detention, but instead

“implicitly limits an alien’s detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s

removal from the United States.” Id at 2498. 

The Zadvydas Court established a “presumptively reasonable period of detention” of six

months. Id. at 2505 (italics added). The burden is on the alien to show that there is no

reasonable likelihood of repatriation. Id. After six months, and once an alien makes a showing

that there is no “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the

Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. However, where

an alien seeks release prior to the expiration of the presumptive six-month period, his claims are

unripe for federal review. See Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 148- 49("[The ripeness

doctrine's] basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication,

from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to

protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been

formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.").

In this case, Petitioner’s own documents indicate that Respondent was in the process of

effectuating his removal when Petitioner obtained a stay of removal from the Immigration Judge. 

(Doc. 1, Attach. C). The ICE performance review, entitled Decision to Continue Detention,

dated May 18, 2009, states that “ICE expects that a travel document will be issued for you and

that your removal will occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.” (Id.). Subsequently,

Petitioner moved to reopen proceedings on the final order of removal before the Immigration

Judge. (Doc. 7, p. 3). The stay of removal issued by the Immigration Judge indicates that it is

effective until the Immigration Judge rules on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of his

removal. (Doc. 7, Attach. 1). The record as presently constituted does not indicate that the

Case 1:09-cv-00947-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 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

Because Petitioner has not objected, and because the Court perceives no prejudice to either party, the Court 2

will also grant Respondent’s nunc pro tunc request for an extension of time to file the response to the order to show

cause. 

4

Immigration Judge has ruled on Petitioner’s motion. Accordingly, the record establishes that the

stay of removal continues to be operative.

Because the final order of removal is currently subject to a judicially-mandated stay,

Petitioner has not, and cannot, establish that there is “no reasonable likelihood of repatriation.” 

Put more directly, Petitioner cannot establish that there is no reasonable likelihood of his removal

as long the Immigration Judge’s stay legally precludes the United States government from

actually effectuating that removal. Under such circumstances, Petitioner’s present detention is a

valid exercise of Respondent’s statutory discretion and, because Petitioner has failed to establish

that no reasonable likelihood of repatriation exists, the petition must be denied on its merits. 

Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 680.2

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DENIED; 

2. Respondent’s nunc pro tunc request for an extension of time to file the response to

the order to show cause (Doc. 7), is GRANTED; and,

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00947-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 Page 4 of 4