Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00701/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00701-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Abisuk Sinsaeng, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Loretta Lynch, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00701-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 The Court now considers Petitioner Abisuk Sinsaeng’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (“Writ”) (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett 

for a Report and Recommendation and she recommended that the Motion be denied. 

(Doc. 15, Report and Recommendation (“R & R”).) Petitioner filed his objections to the 

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 16, Obj. to R & R.) Having reviewed the record de 

novo, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies the Petition. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 The background of this case was summarized in the Report and Recommendation 

and is incorporated herein: 

 Petitioner was born in Thailand. In 1983, at the age of nine, 

Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident in the United States. (Doc. 

1-3 at 8; Doc. 13-1 at 7.) While living in the State of California, Petitioner received criminal convictions in two separate cases. 

 Petitioner received his first criminal conviction in 2001. The 

California Superior Court, County of Sacramento, found Petitioner guilty on one count of simple battery. The court sentenced Petitioner to (i) forty- five days in jail; (ii) a three-year term of probation; and (iii) fifty-two weeks of anger management classes. (Doc. 1-3 at 15.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00701-SRB Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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 2007, the California Superior Court, County of Sacramento, convicted Petitioner of (i) annoying and molesting a child; (ii) sexual battery; and (iii) four counts of preventing or dissuading a victim or a witness. (Id. at 2.) The court sentenced Petitioner to nine years in prison. (Id.) 

 The California Department of Corrections determined that Petitioner 

would be released in June 2012. Before Petitioner was released, ICE 

initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner pursuant to Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). (Doc. 13-1 at 12.) In 2012, the California 

Department of Corrections released Petitioner directly to ICE custody. (Id.) 

 On December 18, 2012, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner removed from the United States to Thailand. (Id. at 23.) After the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id. at 27-36.) The Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal. (Id. at 32.) The Petition for Review is pending as of the date of this Report and Recommendation. 

 In August 2013, ICE issued a decision ordering the continued detention of Petitioner pending resolution of the Petition for Review. (Id. at 

12-13.) In December 2013, an IJ conducted a hearing to determine whether Petitioner should be released on bond. (Doc. 1-3 at 2-6.) The IJ found that 

Petitioner posed a present danger to the community and denied Petitioner’s release. (Id.) The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision. (Doc. 13-1 at 38.) In August 2014, ICE informed Petitioner that he would 

remain in custody while his Petition for Review is pending before the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at 40-41.) Petitioner is currently in custody at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. 

(R & R at 2-3.) 

 On April 17, 2015, Petitioner filed this Petition seeking habeas relief. (Writ at 2.) 

In this Petition, Petitioner raised six arguments: (1) the IJ’s denial of bond based 

exclusively on Mr. Sinsaeng’s past criminal convictions violated his due process, (2) the 

IJ and the BIA failed to provide an individualized hearing violating his due process, (3) 

the IJ and BIA failed to meaningfully consider all relevant evidence violating his due 

process, (4) the IJ and BIA violated his statutory rights by not giving meaningful 

consideration to his supporting evidence, (5) the IJ and BIA violated his regulatory rights 

by not considering material and relevant evidence, and (6) the IJ’s failure to meaningfully 

consider all relevant Guerra factors constitute a legal and constitutional error. (Writ at 

11-18.) The Report and Recommendation concluded that each of Petitioner’s grounds 

lacked merit and recommended that the Court deny the Motion. (R & R at 9-22.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00701-SRB Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS 

 A district court “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 

. . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A 

court need review only those portions objected to by a party, meaning a court can adopt 

without further review all unobjected to portions. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 Petitioner brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which authorizes the 

district court to grant habeas relief whenever an individual is “in custody in violation of 

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). While 

an IJ’s discretionary decision to deny bond is not subject to judicial review, a district 

court may review “bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims and legal error.” 

Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011). Section 1226(a) provides the 

Attorney General with discretionary authority to detain a petitioner or release him on 

bond or conditional parole pending the completion of removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 

1226(a). In making a bond decision under § 1226(a), an IJ “must consider whether an 

alien who seeks a change in custody status is a threat to national security, a danger to the 

community at large, likely to abscond, or otherwise a poor bail risk.” Matter of Guerra, 

24 I & N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (citing Matter of Patel, 15 I & N Dec. 666 (BIA 1976)). 

An IJ may also consider any number of discretionary factors, including: 

(1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United States; (2) the alien’s 

length of residence in the United States; (3) the alien’s family ties in the United States, and whether they may entitle the alien to reside permanently in the United States in the future; (4) the alien’s employment history; (5) the alien’s record of appearance in court; (6) the alien’s criminal record, 

including the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses; (7) the alien’s history of immigration violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee persecution or otherwise escape authorities, and (9) the alien’s manner of entry to the United States. 

Id. 

Case 2:15-cv-00701-SRB Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

 Aliens, like Petitioner, who face prolonged detention while their petitions for 

review are pending before the Ninth Circuit are entitled to Casas bond hearings to 

establish whether their release would present a danger to the community or a flight risk. 

Casas–Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir. 2008). The 

Ninth Circuit has established the following procedural requirements for Casas hearings: 

(1) the government must provide contemporaneous records of the hearing; (2) the IJ must 

place the burden of proof on the government; (3) the government must prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the continued detention is justified; and (4) the alien’s criminal 

history alone may be insufficient to meet the dangerousness standard that must be met to 

deny bond and justify detention, but the government need not establish “special 

dangerousness” to justify denying bond. Singh, 638 F.3d at 1203-09. 

 Petitioner argues that the IJ did not afford the proper weight to his supportive 

evidence. (Writ at 11-18.) Magistrate Judge Willett found that the IJ provided clear and 

convincing evidence to support his dangerousness finding and considered all evidence 

when considering the Guerra factors. (R & R at 13-21.) Petitioner objects to Magistrate 

Judge Willetts’ recommendation that the Court deny his writ of habeas corpus because 

(1) Judge Willett failed to meaningfully consider Petitioner’s rehabilitation efforts 

because they occurred in a controlled environment, (2) her finding that the IJ and BIA 

satisfied his due process rights “by mentioning [his] significant probative evidence 

without giving it meaningful consideration,” and (3) Judge Willett’s finding that the IJ 

and BIA’s failure to consider relevant Guerra factors comports with due process 

requirements. (Obj. to R & R at 2.) 

 While criminal history alone may not always be sufficient to justify bond for 

dangerousness, an IJ may do so if he makes sufficient factual findings. See Singh, 638 

F.3d at 1206. The IJ noted the rehabilitative steps Petitioner took and concluded that even 

in light of those steps, he was still a danger noting that Petitioner “demonstrated a 

complete disregard for fellow human beings and the law” because despite receiving 

domestic violence treatment for his 2001 offense, he was convicted in 2006 of annoying 

Case 2:15-cv-00701-SRB Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

and molesting a child and preventing or dissuading a victim from testifying. (Doc. 1-3 at 

5); In Re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (“An Immigration Judge has broad 

discretion in deciding the factors that he or she may consider in custody redeterminations. 

The Immigration Judge may choose to give greater weight to one factor over others, as 

long as the decision is reasonable.”). While Petitioner has strong family ties, has resided 

in the United States since he was a child, and had numerous positive work 

recommendations while incarcerated; Petitioner did not seek alcohol or sexual abuse 

counseling nor did his positive home environment prevent him from committing the 

crimes at issue here. (Doc. 1-3 at 41-43.) These facts provide clear and convincing 

evidence for a dangerousness finding. Therefore, the record establishes that Petitioner’s 

December 2012 Casas bond hearing was legally sufficient, and his continued detention 

does not violate statutory or constitutional law. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Having reviewed the record de novo, the Court concludes that the Report and 

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court adopts the 

Report and Recommendation and denies the Motion. 

IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendations (Doc. 16). 

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court (Doc. 15). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 1). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-00701-SRB Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The dismissal of the Petition is justified because 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00701-SRB Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 6