Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01731/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01731-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mariano Cortez Tobon, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-1731-PHX-JWS (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On September 10, 2007, the petitioner, Mariano Cortez Tobon, filed a Petition for Writ

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

detention while awaiting removal is contrary to law. The respondents filed an answer on

November 29, 2007. Tobon did not file a reply.

 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, grant the petition. Tobon has been detained for more than six months pending

removal, and there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Summary of the Case

Mariano Cortez Tobon is a native and citizen of Guatemala. (Respondents’ answer, p.

2.) On September 9, 1999, Tobon presented himself at the San Ysidro port of entry and offered

as identification a counterfeit Form I-551 Resident Alien Green Card. Id. When Tobon was

Case 2:07-cv-01731-JWS Document 11 Filed 02/28/08 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 -

properly identified, he expressed fear at the prospect of returning to Guatemala. Id. He was

taken into custody pending a “credible fear interview.” Id. When this interview was conducted

on September 20, 1999, the government concluded there was a significant possibility Tobon

could establish eligibility for asylum. Id. 

On September 30, 1999, the government issued Tobon a Notice to Appear charging him

with removability because he attempted to enter the country by fraud and because he did not

have permission to enter the United States. (Respondents’ answer, p. 2.) Tobon was paroled

into the United States pending his removal hearing. Id. Tobon submitted an I-589 application

for asylum. Id., pp. 2-3.

On October 23, 2003, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Tobon’s application for asylum

and ordered him to voluntarily depart the United States by December 23, 2003. Id., p. 3. The

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision of the IJ on March 15, 2005. Id.

Tobon filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, but the action was dismissed for failure to

prosecute on October 2, 2006. Id., Exhibit 13.

In January of 2007, Tobon was arrested in West Contra Costa County, CA, for driving

under the influence and violating probation. Id., p. 3. Shortly afterwards, he was taken into

federal custody pending removal. Id. On April 19, 2007, the government issued Tobon a

Notice to Alien of File Custody Review and informed him that the Guatemalan consulate

determined his birth certificate was fraudulent. Id.

On August 24, 2007, Tobon filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. He

argues his continued detention is contrary to law because he has been detained for more than

six months pending removal and there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably

foreseeable future. (Petition, p. 4.) 

Discussion

If an alien is determined to be removable, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs the detention and

removal process. 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

Case 2:07-cv-01731-JWS Document 11 Filed 02/28/08 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 -

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. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).

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). 

In this case, Tobon was ordered removed by the IJ on October 23, 2003. Tobon’s

“removal period” began on October 2, 2006, when the Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal. See

8 C.F.R. 1241.1. At that time, the 90-day removal period began, and Tobon’s detention was

authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).

Where, as here, removal is not accomplished within the 90-day removal period, the

government may detain the alien past the removal period for a period reasonably necessary to

accomplish the removal. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 682 (2001) (construing 8 U.S.C. §

1231(a)(6)). This detention, however, is not without Constitutional limitation. Id. Extended

detention beyond the removal period violates due process if six months have passed and there

is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Zadvydas v. Davis,

533 U.S. 678, 699, 701 (2001); See also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 378 (2005)

(extending the holding of Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens). “[O]nce the alien provides good

reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable

future, the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Zadvydas

v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2505 (U.S.,2001). To benefit from the holding

in Zadvydas, the alien must cooperate with the government’s efforts to remove him. “[W]hen

an alien refuses to cooperate fully and honestly with officials to secure travel documents from

a foreign government, the alien cannot meet his or her burden to show there is no significant

likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Lema v. I.N.S., 341 F.3d 853, 856

(9th Cir. 2003).

Case 2:07-cv-01731-JWS Document 11 Filed 02/28/08 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

1

 The office of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) was formerly know as the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (Respondents’ answer, Exhibit 19, ¶ 1.) 

- 4 -

In the instant case, Tobon has been detained beyond the six-month period. He argues

there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future because he has

fully cooperated in this government’s attempt to remove him, but the government of Guatemala

refuses to give him travel documents. In his affidavit, Tobon asserts he was born in

Huehuetengango, Guatemala on the date and to the parents indicated on his birth certificate.

(Petition, attachment.) He apparently supplied the Guatemalan consulate with this birth

certificate, but the consulate claims it is fraudulent and refuses to issue travel documents.

Tobon asserts in his affidavit that the document is genuine. Id.

The government argues Tobon’s detention is lawful because he has not cooperated in

good faith in his removal. Ordinarily, in this situation the court reviews the record to determine

whether the factual findings of the ICE1

 are supported by substantial evidence. See Lema v.

I.N.S., 341 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Arrington v. Daniels; __ F.3d __, __, 2008

WL 441835 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In conducting our review, we may look only to the administrative

record to determine whether the agency has articulated a rational basis for its decision.”). The

record, however, does not contain any formal decision from the ICE regarding Tobon’s

cooperation, or lack thereof. The only relevant document is a declaration by Jesse M. Ray who

is employed as a deportation officer for the ICE. See (Respondents’ answer, Exhibit 19, ¶ 3.)

Ray reports there is a notation in the alien administration file (“A-file”) to the effect that

Tobon’s birth certificate “was found to be fraudulent by a consular official . . . and as a result

the consulate of Guatemala has declined to provide a travel document until such time as valid

information is received.” Id. There is no other information.

Based on this record, the court cannot conclude Tobon is not cooperating in good faith

with his removal. Apparently, someone at the consulate believes Tobon’s birth certificate to

be fraudulent. Unfortunately, there is no indication who that person is, what evidence supports

this conclusion, or what the term “fraudulent” means in this context. The government has made

Case 2:07-cv-01731-JWS Document 11 Filed 02/28/08 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 -

no formal finding concerning whether Tobon has cooperated in good faith, and if not, what he

must do now to facilitate his departure. For his part, Tobon has apparently done what he was

asked to do. Between May and July of 2007, Tobon spoke with his consulate at least three

times, wrote a letter to the Consulate General, and submitted to an interview with a consulate

official. (Respondents’ answer, Exhibit 18.) He submitted a birth certificate, which he

apparently believes is genuine.

Tobon has been held pending removal for approximately 12 months. There is no

significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Recommendation

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

of the record, grant the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on September 10, 2007.

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

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 respondents.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01731-JWS Document 11 Filed 02/28/08 Page 5 of 5