Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01789/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01789-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

- 1 - 07cv1789 WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAAC ABDI HASHI,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv1789 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, ALBERTO GONZALES,

ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROBIN F.

BAKER, DIRECTOR OF SAN DIEGO

FIELD OFFICE, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, JOHN A.

GARZON, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) filed by

Petitioner Isaac Abdi Hashi. 

Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Somalia. Petition, p. 2. In 1993, Petitioner entered the 

United States as a refugee and later adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. Id. at 2-3. On

February 23, 2004, Petitioner was convicted of carjacking and sentenced to three years in prison. 

Id. at Exhibit 3. Upon release from prison, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)

placed Petitioner in removal proceedings in Florence, Arizona where an Immigration Judge

ordered him removed to Somalia. On February 8, 2007, the order of removal became final. Id. 

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 01/15/08 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 - 07cv1789 WQH (JMA)

On September 11, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. #1). Petitioner alleges in the Petition that his detention is

unlawful because he has been detained beyond the presumptively reasonable period of six months

after his removal order became final, and there is no significant likelihood that he will actually be

removed to Somalia in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,

701 (2001). Petitioner moves the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to

release him from custody. 

On October 12, 2007, Respondents filed a Return in Opposition to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (“Return”). (Doc. # 17). Respondents oppose the Petition on grounds that

Petitioner will be removed to Somalia in the reasonably foreseeable future. Return, p. 3. In

support of this assertion, Respondents submit the Declaration of Deportation Officer Tomas Curi,

who attests that “ICE is presently arranging the details of Mr. Hashi’s removal for the purpose of

effecting his removal within thirty days.” Id. at Exhibit 1. Respondents contend that the

“extended time required for planning Hashi’s removal has been due to the delay in discovering his

extraordinary danger to the community, the need to obtain spending authority for a removal

operation that will cost well into six figures, the need to contract for charter flight services, and the

need to plan an itinerary which involves, among other things, the need to obtain clearances from

the governments of transit countries.” Id. at 3. 

On November 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (Doc. # 21). Petitioner contends that

Respondents’ assertion that his removal to Somalia is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future is 

contrary to the history of [Respondent’s] dealings with Mr. Hashi in this case, contrary

to the warzone conditions in Somalia making safe deportation impossible, contrary to

[Respondents’] failed attempts to deport the most well-known Somali in this country

[see discussion of Jama v. ICE, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9725, below] and contrary to

the consistent decisions by U.S. courts that Somali aliens must be released from

detention because their imminent removal is unlikely. 

Traverse, p. 12, 13. Petitioner contends that Respondents have “had a reasonable and appropriate

opportunity to remove Mr. Hashi for the last nine months with no success,” and that Respondents

“adduce nothing to show that removal is indeed reasonably imminent.” Id. at 13. 

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 01/15/08 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 - 07cv1789 WQH (JMA)

Applicable Law

8 U.S.C. section 1231 governs the detention and removal of aliens subject to final orders of 

removal. Pursuant to section 1231(a)(1), once an alien is ordered removed, “the Attorney General

shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). 

Section 1231(a)(3) provides that if the alien is not removed within this 90 day removal period, the

alien, pending removal, shall be subject to supervision under regulations prescribed by the

Attorney General. Section 1231(a)(6) provides that an alien subject to a final order of removal

“who has been determined by the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to

comply with the order of removal, may be detained beyond” the 90 day removal period. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a)(6). 

The authority under section 1231(a)(6) to detain an alien beyond the 90 day removal period

is not absolute. If, after six months of post-removal detention, an “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.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at

701. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that continued detention is lawful as long as

“good faith efforts to effectuate . . . deportation continue,” and concluded that “this standard would

seem to require an alien seeking release to show the absence of any prospect of removal - no

matter how unlikely or unforeseeable - which demands more than our reading of the statute can

bear.” Id. at 702. As the “period for confinement grows, what counts as the ‘reasonably

foreseeable future’ conversely would have to shrink.” Id. 

[I]f removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention

unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute. In that case, of course, the alien’s

release may and should be conditioned on any of the various forms of supervised

release that are appropriate in the circumstances, and that the alien may no doubt be

returned to custody upon a violation of these conditions. And if removal is reasonably

foreseeable, the habeas court should consider the risk of the alien’s committing further

crimes as a factor potentially justifying confinement within that reasonable removal

period.

Id. 

The case of Jama v. ICE, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9725 (D. Minn. Apr. 7, 2005),

demonstrates the extreme difficulties involved in effectuating an alien’s removal to Somalia. 

Petitioner Jama, a citizen of Somalia who was subject to a final order of removal and detained

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 01/15/08 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 - 07cv1789 WQH (JMA)

pursuant to section 1231, filed a renewed habeas petition alleging that his detention was unlawful

under Zadyvdas. In response to the renewed petition, the government submitted an affidavit

representing that a plan to remove Jama had been finalized, which the district court determined

was insufficient because “it disclosed nothing to the Court except the date by which ICE planned

to carry out the deportation.” The government then submitted a sealed affidavit describing the

plan to remove Jama in more detail, and the district court “determined that Jama’s deportation

would indeed take place in the reasonably foreseeable future and thus permitted the plan to

proceed.” Id. at *5. The government attempted to deport Jama by transporting him on a private

plane accompanied by private contractors to Puntland, an autonomous region in Somalia. The

attempt proved unsuccessful when Puntland officials denied Jama entry, and Jama was

accompanied back to the United States and returned to detention. Id. at *6-7. The government

advised the district court that it intended to remove Jama again within six weeks of his return to

detention, but revealed no specific information as to any plan for deportation. Id. at *9. In

granting Jama’s habeas petition and ordering his release from custody, the district court stated that

[t]he Court notes again that deportation to Somalia is neither easily arranged nor easily

executed and may well be impossible. This has been more than amply demonstrated

by the government’s several unsuccessful attempts to piece together a deportation plan

over the years and by the recent failed and dangerous attempt. . . . In fact, even ICE

has acknowledged that it may well be impossible to successfully deport Jama or any

of the other Somalis subject to deportation. 

Id. at * 13. The district court concluded that the government’s statements that “ICE is developing

an itinerary to accomplish Jama’s removal from the United States to [Somalia]” and that it “is

anticipated that Jama’s removal will be successfully executed within the next few weeks,”

constituted a “refusal to provide the Court with any concrete information regarding a removal

plan,” leaving “the Court no choice but to conclude that no viable plan exists and that plaintiff

cannot and will not be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, as required by law.” Id. at

*21-22. 

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 01/15/08 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 - 07cv1789 WQH (JMA)

Ruling of the Court

Petitioner has been in post-removal custody for more than nine months, which is

presumptively unreasonable under Zadvydas. Petitioner submitted evidence to demonstrate that

ICE is not in possession of a travel document, and that ICE has admitted that Petitioner’s removal

“is not likely to occur within the reasonably foreseeable future.” Traverse, Exhibit E, p. 4, 8. 

Aside from Deportation Officer Curi’s Declaration, dated October 12, 2007, stating that “ICE is

presently arranging the details of Mr. Hashi’s removal for the purpose of effecting his removal

within thirty days,” Respondents do not submit evidence to demonstrate that they have been

“actively and diligently pursuing possible repatriation” of Petitioner, or that there is a “significant

likelihood of [Petitioner’s] removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” See Zadvydas, 533 U.S.

at 701; Jama, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9725. Respondents have also not submitted any evidence to

rebut Petitioner’s contention that safe deportation to Somalia is not possible in the reasonably

foreseeable future in light of the country’s warzone conditions and lack of diplomatic ties to the

United States. 

The Court concludes that Petitioner has been detained beyond the presumptively

reasonable period established in Zadvydas and that there is “good reason to believe that there is no

significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” See Zadvydas, 533

U.S. at 701. The Court will order that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing whether

Petitioner is entitled to immediate release subject to the conditions in section 1231(a)(3). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file their supplemental briefs addressing

whether Petitioner is entitled to immediate release subject to the conditions in section 1231(a)(3)

on or before Friday, January 25, 2008. 

DATED: January 15, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 5