Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03464/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03464-3/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

GEORGE JOHN RICHARD EVERS,

Petitioner,

 v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 09-03464 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July 28, 2009, when Petitioner George John Richard Evers (“Petitioner”) filed this

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he was in custody for the

purposes of habeas corpus relief. On September 17, 2009, Respondents removed Petition from

the United States. However, this Court appears to retain jurisdiction over the petition.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner alleges that on January 18, 2005, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) executed a final administrative order of removal against Petitioner. On

February 11, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for review of the removal order before the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeal. On August 12, 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion dismissing in

part and denying in part the petition. The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on October 29, 2008.

Petitioner alleges that on September 26, 2008, he filed a motion to reopen the removal

proceedings. The grounds for Petitioner’s motion to reopen were: (1) changed country

circumstances after entry of the final order of removal, requiring a reasonable fear hearing; and

(2) failure to comply with the statutory provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) and the supporting 

Case 3:09-cv-03464-JSW Document 15 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

regulations. According to Petitioner, to date, ICE has not adjudicated this motion. On

December 2, 2008, the Asylum Office, Citizenship and Immigration Services, held a reasonable

fear hearing, and subsequently held that there was no reasonable fear of return to Fiji. 

Petitioner alleges that this office lacked jurisdiction to make this determination. On February

11, 2009, the Office of the Immigration Judge, Executive Office For Immigration Review

affirmed the reasonable fear determination.

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of a person “in custody

under or by color of the authority of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1). The Court

“shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the

writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims

appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and merit an answer from Respondents.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown the Court hereby issues an ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE why the writ of habeas corpus should not issue. The Court FURTHER

ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner shall serve a copy of this Order, the petition, and all attachments

thereto upon Respondents no later than January 22, 2010. Petitioner thereafter shall file a proof

of service with the Court by no later than January 26, 2010.

2. Respondents shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, no later than

February 22, 2010, an answer showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. If

applicable, Respondents shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions

of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-03464-JSW Document 15 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3. If the Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondents within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03464-JSW Document 15 Filed 01/08/10 Page 3 of 3