Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00892/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00892-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yingzhi C. Zhang, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto R. Gonzales, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV06-0892-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Petitioner Yingzhi C. Zhang filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing that

his detention for over three years while his removal proceedings have been pending is

unlawful. (Doc. 1). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss, who

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the

Petition and order Respondent to provide a hearing to Petitioner within 60 days before an

Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless Respondent establishes that he

is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community. (Doc. 21). Respondent filed Objections

to the R&R, (Doc. 22), to which Petitioner responded (Doc. 23). For the reasons stated

herein, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because objections

were made, the Court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo.

Case 2:06-cv-00892-ROS Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 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 -

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)

(en banc). 

DISCUSSION

Relying primarily upon Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005), the Magistrate

Judge found that Petitioner’s detention for over three years and counting under 8 U.S.C. §

1226(c) not authorized by law. In Tijani, the alien was “deprived of his liberty by the

government for a period of over two years and eight months.” Id. at 1242. To avoid the

question whether such a lengthy detention was constitutional, the Ninth Circuit interpreted

Section 1226(c) as requiring expeditious removal. Id. Because the court determined that

nearly three years was not expeditious, it remanded the case to the district court to grant the

habeas petition unless the government provided the alien a bail hearing before an

Immigration Judge. Id. The period of time at issue here is even longer than that in Tijani,

and thus clearly not expeditious. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner’s continued detention is not authorized by law. See Singh v. Crawford, No. CV

06-2194, 2007 WL 2237637 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2007) (holding that alien’s detention for two

years and nine months was not authorized by law under Tijani); Ali v. Crawford, No. CV 06-

1149, 2007 WL 1670165 (D. Ariz. June 8, 2007) (same for four years). 

Having reviewed the record de novo, including the Objections filed by Respondent,

the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and incorporates the same as part of this

Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is

ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall either release Petitioner from

custody under an order of supervision, or provide a hearing to Petitioner, within 60 days of

Case 2:06-cv-00892-ROS Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 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 -

the filing of this Order, before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless

Respondent establishes that he is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community. 

DATED this 5th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00892-ROS Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 Page 3 of 3