Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01939/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01939-1/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 (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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Moua Vue,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Katrina Kane, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1939-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns in light of the Petitioner’s Objections to Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 39) and the respondents’ Reply to Petitioner’s Objections

to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40), the Court finds that the petitioner’s

objections should be overruled and that the Magistrate Judge correctly

determined that the petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Petition, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, should be dismissed as moot.

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Laos who entered the United States

as a refugee in December, 1989, failed to apply for and acquire lawful permanent

residency within one year of his entry into the United States as required by 8

U.S.C. 1159(a). The petitioner was taken into custody by Immigration and

Case 2:09-cv-01939-PGR Document 41 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a), a refugee who has been physically present in

the United States for at least one year and has not acquired permanent resident

status must “return or be returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland

Security for inspection and examination for admission to the United States as an

immigrant[.]” 

- 2 -

Customs Enforcement in May, 2009 due to his failure to comply with § 1159(a).1

In his habeas petition, filed on September 18, 2009, the petitioner sought his

immediate release from immigration custody on the ground that his continuing

detention under § 1159(a) was not constitutionally or statutorily authorized.

Removal proceedings were commenced against the petitioner in October, 2009,

and on November 10, 2009, the petitioner conceded his removability and waived

the opportunity to seek any form of relief. He was then ordered removed to Laos

and he waived appeal. On February 12, 2010, he was released from immigration

custody on an order of supervision pending his removal. 

Notwithstanding that he has obtained the relief he sought in his petition,

which was release from immigration custody, the petitioner argues that this action

should not be dismissed as moot pursuant to both the “capable of repetition yet

evading review” exception to mootness and the “voluntary cessation” exception to

mootness. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that neither exception is

applicable here.

The “capable of repetition” exception, which applies only in exceptional

circumstances, cannot save this action from dismissal for mootness because the

petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of a reasonable expectation or a

demonstrated probability that he will again be subject to the same § 1159-related

detention controversy. As the petitioner expressly concedes in his objections, 

the existence of his unchallenged final order of removal means that he is unlikely

Case 2:09-cv-01939-PGR Document 41 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

to be detained under § 1159 in the future. The Court rejects the petitioner’s

contention that he nevertheless falls within the purview of the exception because

his case is materially similar to a class action as he is, through his counsel who is

a public interest attorney, seeking to represent interests broader than his own,

i.e., the rights of other unadjusted refugees who may be indefinitely detained

under § 1159. The petitioner, who only sought relief for himself in his habeas

petition, cannot properly forestall a mootness dismissal under the “capable of

repetition” exception by recharacterizing his petition as a generic challenge to

ICE’s § 1159 detention policy. In any case, the Magistrate Judge properly

concluded that the petitioner has not established that ICE currently has an

ongoing policy of indefinitely detaining unadjusted refugees pursuant to § 1159.

Second, the “voluntary cessation” exception also cannot save this action

from dismissal because the respondents have sufficiently met their burden of

showing that ICE’s adoption in 2009 and 2010 of detention guidance policies

regarding unadjusted refugees has made it clear that the allegedly wrongful 

§ 1159-related detention policies underlying this action cannot reasonably be

expected to recur. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 38) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is denied and that this action

is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01939-PGR Document 41 Filed 01/06/11 Page 3 of 3