Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02247/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02247-1/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

Adeniran Richard Adeogba, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et

al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2247-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

challenging his continued detention under the immigration laws as unconstitutional. The

matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson who has issued a Report and

Recommendation that recommends (1) that Petitioner's motion to amend to add parties should

be denied; (2) that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be granted unless within 60

days of the District Court's ruling on the Report and Recommendation Respondents provide

Petitioner with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant Petitioner

bail; and (3) that Respondents be ordered to file a status report every thirty days until

Petitioner is granted a bond hearing. (Doc. 23). 

This Court granted Respondents an enlargement of time to file an objection to the

Report and Recommendation, up to and until June 30, 2006. (Doc. 25). Respondents have

not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner has not filed an

objection to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner has filed a motion for bail pending

Case 2:05-cv-02247-MHM Document 29 Filed 07/20/06 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 -

final judgment in habeas proceedings (Doc. 26) and a notice of Respondents' failure to file an

objection. (Doc. 28). Petitioner also has filed a motion to correct typographical errors in his

motion for bail pending final judgment. (Doc. 27). Petitioner's motion to correct

typographical errors in his motion for bail (Doc. 27) is granted. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case.

Petitioner seeks his release on bond pending disposition of the proceedings that are currently

ongoing before the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

The factual background of this case is set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nigeria who first entered the United States in 1979. He

was ordered deported from the United States on February 21, 1991 and was physically

removed from the United States on March 6, 1991 under the name Ademuyiwa OguntadeOluwniyi. Petitioner subsequently re-entered the United States on March 24, 1991 without

permission. Petitioner has a history of criminal activity. On June 2, 1995, he pleaded guilty

to Theft with One Prior Felony in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802 and was sentenced to 7.5

years of imprisonment. On August 13, 2000, Petitioner was released from state custody and

taken into the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Department of

Homeland Security) under the name Richard Adeniran Adeogba. Petitioner was subject to

removal as an alien who is in the United States without lawful residence and who has been

convicted of an aggravated felony. 

Case 2:05-cv-02247-MHM Document 29 Filed 07/20/06 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 -

Before he could be removed, Petitioner requested asylum asserting that he feared

persecution upon return to Nigeria. Petitioner's application for asylum and for withholding

of removal were denied by an asylum officer. This denial was affirmed by an immigration

judge on January 12, 2001. On May 17, 2002, a deportation officer issued a final

administrative removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b). During on-going attempts by DHS

to remove Petitioner pursuant to the final order of removal, Petitioner requested relief in the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but was not successful. 

On March 11, 2003, Petitioner filed his first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On May 5, 2005, this Court granted

Petitioner's first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remanded to the Board of

Immigration Appeals for further consideration of his claims for relief under § 212(h) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, his request for relief under the United Nations Convention

Against Torture and his application for asylum. Adeogba v. INS, CV 03-0481-PHX-MHM.

This Court also granted Petitioner a stay of removal pending further proceedings before the

BIA. 

On February 22, 2006, the Immigration Court denied Petitioner's application for

asylum and withholding of removal, denied Petitioner's request for a waiver under § 212, and

denied his application for deferral of removal under Article III of the Convention Against

Torture. On or about March 14, 2006, Petitioner filed an appeal with the BIA which appears

to remain pending. 

Petitioner has filed the present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking an order to

compel Respondents to release him. Petitioner contends that his continued detention without

bond for more than five years is unconstitutional. The Magistrate Judge has issued a Report

and Recommendation that recommends, inter alia, that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

should be granted unless within 60 days of the District Court's ruling on the Report and

Recommendation Respondents provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an Immigration

Judge with the power to grant Petitioner bail. Petitioner has filed a motion for bail asserting

Case 2:05-cv-02247-MHM Document 29 Filed 07/20/06 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 -

that this Court has inherent authority to order his release on bail pending a decision in a

habeas case. 

This Court agrees with the findings and conclusions set forth in the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner, whose detention has become

prolonged, should be afforded a bail hearing or be released. As discussed by the Magistrate

Judge, Petitioner's detention has lasted more than five years. The record in this case does not

contain much information about review of Petitioner's custody status since he was taken into

INS custody in August 2000. The bail hearing should be before an Immigration Judge with

the power to grant Petitioner bail unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk or

will be a danger to the community. See Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.

2005)(remanding to the district court with instructions to grant the writ unless the government

within 60 days of the order provides a hearing to petitioner before an Immigration Judge).

Petitioner's motion for a bail determination hearing before this Court (Doc. 26) is denied. 

This Court directs that the bond hearing be held within thirty (30) days of the filing

date of this Order, rather than within sixty (60) days as recommended by the Magistrate

Judge. This Court further directs that, instead of the filing of a status report every thirty (30)

days, Respondents shall file a status report in this Court within forty-five (45) days of the

filing date of this Order.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.

23) in its entirety as modified by this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to amend to add parties (Doc.

11) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to correct typographical errors

in his motion for bail pending final judgment (Doc. 27) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for a bail determination hearing

before this Court (Doc. 26) is denied. 

Case 2:05-cv-02247-MHM Document 29 Filed 07/20/06 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be

granted unless within thirty (30) days from the filing date of this Order Respondents provide

Petitioner with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant Petitioner

bail.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a status report in this Court

within forty-five (45) days of the filing date of this Order. 

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02247-MHM Document 29 Filed 07/20/06 Page 5 of 5