Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01729-0/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 (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

DHS records indicate May 18, 1981 as Ballestero-Lezcano's date of birth. However,

he does not suggest in his petition that he is a citizen of the United States.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Francisco Ballestero-Lezcano,

Petitioner,

vs.

Philip Crawford, et al.,

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1729-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On July 12, 2006, Francisco Ballestero-Lezcano filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that immigration officials are holding him in detention

pending his removal to Nicaragua, but that his removal cannot be effected. He argues that he

is entitled to immediate release from custody because his indefinite detention with no prospect

that his removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not authorized by law.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends

that Ballestero-Lezcano’s petition be denied.

Ballestero-Lezcano is a native and citizen of Nicaragua, who entered into the United

States without inspection near San Ysidro, California, "on or about May 18, 1981" (Doc. #10,

Exh 1, 2).1

 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Notice to Appear on

Case 2:06-cv-01729-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/17/06 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

Although Respondents do not document this statement, Ballestero-Lezcano does not

contest it.

3

Although Respondents do not document this statement, Ballestero-Lezcano does not

contest it.

- 2 -

September 19, 2005, charging Ballestero-Lezcano with removal as an alien present in the United

States without having been admitted or paroled, and having been convicted of a crime involving

moral turpitude (Id., Exh 2). DHS alleged that he had been convicted in the California Superior

Court of Grand Theft Auto, in violation of § 487(d)(1) of the California Penal Code, and

sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment (Id., Exh 3). 

At the request of DHS, the crime of moral turpitude was held in abeyance; BallesteroLezcano admitted the allegations, conceded the entry without inspection charge, and expressed

a fear of returning to Nicaragua.2

 The charge was sustained, Ballestero-Lezcano was given an

application for asylum, the case was rescheduled twice to allow him to submit his application,

and that he was specifically warned that the failure to submit the application at the next court

date would result in a finding that the application was abandoned, and he would be ordered

removed to Nicaragua.3

 Although he submitted his application at the next court date, the

immigration judge deemed it abandoned, and ordered him removed. Both parties waived appeal

(Id., Exh 4). 

Following an interview with the Nicaraguan Consulate on December 6, 2005, during

which it was determined that Ballestero-Lezcano could not verify his citizenship, the vice

consul concluded that it would take three to five months to research his identity in Nicaragua

(Id., Exh 5). On February 8 and April 26, 2006, he was re-interviewed by the vice consul; in

the latter interview and again on May 24, 2006, Ballestero-Lezcano was informed that a copy

of his birth certificate had been ordered, and that the consulate would issue travel documents

once it was received. On July 13, detention was continued based upon his criminal convictions

and the likelihood of his removal (Id., Exh 6). On September 15, the Nicaraguan Consulate

Case 2:06-cv-01729-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/17/06 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

4

Although Respondents do not document this statement, Ballestero-Lezcano does not

contest it.

- 3 -

indicated that they had received Ballestero-Lezcano’s birth certificate.4

 In a September 18

declaration, a deportation officer indicated the consulate’s intent to issue travel documents and

that he expected Ballestero-Lezcano to be removed “within the next several weeks” (Id., Exh

7).

DHS is authorized to detain an alien for a period reasonably necessary to accomplish his

removal from the United States. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Following the six-month

presumptive period authorized in Zadvydas, Ballestero-Lezcano must provide “good reason to

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

Id. Respondents contend that Ballestero-Lezcano has failed to do this, and in addition has

refused to cooperate in his removal, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). The Court agrees with

Respondents that Ballestero-Lezcano has shown no evidence that he requested travel

documents, and the evidence does show that he claimed to have no identification documents or

relatives able to assist in providing documentation. Finally, Respondents produced evidence

over the past two years of more than 1100 aliens repatriated to Nicaragua, and the Nicaraguan

Consulate’s intent, in this particular case, to issue travel documents. See Doc. #10, Exh 7.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Francisco Ballestero-Lezcano’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DENIED (Doc. #1).

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

ten 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(e), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the

Case 2:06-cv-01729-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/17/06 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 - 4 -

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01729-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/17/06 Page 4 of 4