Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01089/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01089-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathon Flores, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Phillip Crawford, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1089-PHX-EHC (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(second)

On April 19, 2006, the petitioner, Jonathon Flores, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241. He argues his current detention

while in removal proceedings is contrary to law. The respondent filed an answer on January

12, 2007.

 Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for a Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, deny the petition. Flores’ current detention is authorized by statute.

Summary of the Case

Flores is a native and citizen of the Philippines who entered the United States as an

immigrant on March 28, 1990. (Respondent’s answer, p. 2.) On October 16, 1997, he was

convicted of Criminal Possession of Controlled Substance, methamphetamine, in violation of

section 11377(a) of the California Health and Safety Code. Id. On August 15, 2001, he was

Case 2:06-cv-01089-EHC Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 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 -

convicted of Criminal Possession of Controlled Substance, codeine, in violation of section

11350(a) of the California Health and Safety Code. Id. 

On July 18, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Flores a Notice

to Appear charging him with removability because he was convicted of an aggravated felony,

a drug trafficking crime, pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(A) (iii) [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)].

Id., p. 2. 

The DHS later supplemented its charge to allege Flores was removable because he was

convicted of a controlled substance violation other than a single offense involving possession

for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) [8

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)]. (Respondent’s answer, pp. 2-3.) The DHS found Flores was subject

to mandatory detention. Id., p. 3.

On September 24, 2003, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found Flores removable. Id. Flores

appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which affirmed the decision of the IJ. Id.

Flores filed a petition for review and stay of removal with the Ninth Circuit. Id., p. 3.

At the same time, Flores filed a motion to reconsider with the BIA citing a recent change

in the law – Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2004). Id., p. 3. The BIA

granted the motion and remanded to case to the IJ. Id.

Two months later, the IJ found Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft had been withdrawn and

ordered Flores removed again. Id. Flores again appealed to the BIA. Id. 

On July 16, 2004, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Flores’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id.,

p. 3-4.

The BIA remanded the case to the IJ to consider the newly issued opinion, CazarezGutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2004), and its relation to Flores’ eligibility for

cancellation of removal. Id., p. 4. The IJ found Flores ineligible for cancellation of removal

and ordered him removed again. Id.

Flores again appealed to the BIA which affirmed the decision of the IJ. Id. Flores filed

a petition for review and stay of removal with the Ninth Circuit. Id. The Ninth Circuit granted

Flores’ motion for stay pending review on October 18, 2005. Id.

Case 2:06-cv-01089-EHC Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 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 -

On April 19, 2006, Flores filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argues his current detention while in removal proceedings is contrary

to law citing, inter alia, Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005).

On August 8, 2006, the Ninth Circuit denied Flores’ appeal in part and dismissed in part.

Id. Flores filed a petition for rehearing. Id. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition and issued

its mandate on January 3, 2007. Id. 

On February 2, 2007, Flores filed a motion to reopen with the BIA. [doc. # 15,

Attachment]

On February 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. The

Magistrate Judge recommended the District Court deny the petition because Flores’ detention

was authorized by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2) now that the mandate had been issued.

On March 14, 2007, Flores filed an objection informing the court that the BIA granted

his motion to reopen and remanded his case to the IJ for further proceedings. [doc. # 15,

Attachment] On June 6, 2007, the District Court again referred the case to the Magistrate Judge

for a Report and Recommendation.

Discussion

Alien detention and removal is governed by a multi-layered statutory scheme. See 8

U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1226b, 1231, 1537. The two main statutory provisions are sections 1226 and

1231 [INA §§ 236, 241]. Ordinarily, section 1226 governs the initial apprehension and

detention of aliens to determine whether they should be removed from the United States.

Section 1226(c) requires the detention of certain classes of aliens, notably those aliens who have

been convicted of certain specific offenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B). 

If the alien is determined to be “removable,” section 1231 governs the detention, release

and removal of the alien. Section 1231(a)(2) authorizes the detention of the alien during the 90-

day “removal period” which the statute assumes will be adequate in most circumstances to

complete the removal. Detention past the 90-day limit may be allowed if the alien fails to make

a good faith effort to obtain the necessary travel documents. 

Case 2:06-cv-01089-EHC Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 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 -

This “removal period” ordinarily begins on “[t]he date the order of removal becomes

administratively final.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i). If the alien files an appeal and the court

of appeals orders a stay of removal, the removal period begins on “the date of the court’s final

order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii). 

Flores argues his detention is not authorized by law. At the time he filed his petition,

Flores had a colorable argument. He had filed an appeal, and the court of appeals had granted

a stay of removal. Accordingly, the removal period had not yet begun, and he was being

detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 [INA § 236]. The Ninth Circuit has held that section 1226

authorizes only brief periods of detention. Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 1242 (9th Cir. 2003).

Detention during an extended period of appellate review is not authorized. Id.

On January 3, 2007, however, the Ninth Circuit denied Flores’ appeal and issued its

mandate. The mandate triggered section 1231. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii). Flores then

was being detained pursuant to section 1231(a)(2) which authorizes an alien’s detention during

the 90-day removal period. 

On March 8, 2007, the BIA granted Flores’ motion to reopen and remanded the case to

the IJ. Flores is again in removal adjudication proceedings. His detention is authorized by 8

U.S.C. § 1226 [INA § 236] which allows detention during an “expedited” period. Tijani, 430

F.3d at 1242. Flores has been so detained for approximately four and one-half months. Four

and one-half months still qualifies as an “expedited”proceeding. Compare Demore v. Kim, 538

U.S. 510, 529-30 (2003) (Petitioner’s detention of six months pursuant to section 1226(c) did

not violated due process.) with Tijani, 430 F.3d at 1243 (Detention for two years and eight

months was not authorized by section 1226(c).). Flores’ detention is authorized by law.

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on April 19, 2006.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are not

Case 2:06-cv-01089-EHC Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 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 -

timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondent.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01089-EHC Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 Page 5 of 5