Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00031/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00031-1/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bao Vu,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-11-00031-PHX-GMS (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Bao Vu (A045-850-621), who is represented by counsel, has filed an

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a native and

citizen of Vietnam who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident on February

14, 1997. On February 16, 2010, following completion of his state sentence of imprisonment

for attempted murder, Petitioner was taken into custody by Immigrations and Customs

Enforcement (ICE). On March 17, 2010, an Immigration Judge issued an order for

Petitioner’s removal from the United States. Petitioner did not appeal.

Petitioner alleges that despite his cooperation with ICE’s attempts to obtain travel

documents, ICE has been unable to remove him to Vietnam. Petitioner argues that he is

entitled to release from custody under an order of supervision because his detention with no

prospect that his removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not

authorized by law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is no reasonable

Case 2:11-cv-00031-GMS Document 20 Filed 05/31/11 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

27

28 - 2 -

likelihood that a foreign government will accept an alien’s return in the reasonably

foreseeable future, the INS may not detain the alien for more than the presumptively

reasonable period of six months).

On May 13, 2011, Respondents filed a Notice to the Court and Suggestion of

Mootness (Doc. 17) indicating that Petitioner was deported on May 3, 2011. Accordingly,

on May 16, 2011, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why his Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus should not be dismissed as moot in light of his deportation. (Doc. 18.)

Thereafter, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Respondents’

Suggestion of Mootness. (Doc. 19.)

It appearing that the relief requested in Petitioner’s habeas petition has been granted,

and both parties agree that the habeas petition is now moot and should, therefore, be

dismissed, the Court will recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 3) be DISMISSED.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

Case 2:11-cv-00031-GMS Document 20 Filed 05/31/11 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

27

28 - 3 -

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 31st day of May, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00031-GMS Document 20 Filed 05/31/11 Page 3 of 3