Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01056/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01056-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fadil Dervis Mesic, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzalez, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-01056-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1),

respondent's answer (doc. 13), petitioner's reply (doc. 11), the report and recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 14) and petitioner's objections (doc. 15). Respondent did not

respond to the objections, and the time for filing a response has expired. For the reasons

stated below, we adopt the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full.

Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief because he has been

unconstitutionally detained for over two years pending final adjudication of his removal

proceedings. See Petition at 1-2. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal because

petitioner is an alien who has conceded deportability and is therefore subject to mandatory

detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). See Report and Recommendation ("R & R") at 3-5

(citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 123 S. Ct. 1708 (2003)). 

Case 2:06-cv-01056-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/30/07 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 -

Petitioner first objects by arguing that Kim is distinguishable because although an

administrative decision has determined that petitioner is removable, he has appealed, and

therefore his removability has not been conceded. Objections at 1-2. 

An alien convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), aliens convicted of certain

crimes, including aggravated felonies, must be detained "for the brief period necessary for

their removal proceedings" because of the risk that if not detained, they "may continue to

engage in crime and fail to appear for their removal hearings." Kim, 538 U.S. at 513, 123

S. Ct. at 1712. The alien in Kim did not dispute the validity of the convictions that rendered

him deportable, and did not argue that he was improperly included in a mandatory detention

category by virtue of those convictions; that is, he conceded that he was deportable. Id. at

514, 123 S. Ct. at 1712. Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention if, as in Kim, his prior

conviction triggers Section 1226(c)'s mandatory detention provision. 

Petitioner is deportable because of a 1993 aggravated felony conviction (aggravated

assault). See INS Removal Proceedings Notice to Appear, Answer Exhibit 19. Petitioner's

application for asylum and for withholding of removal does not dispute the validity of that

conviction. Rather, it seeks relief because of religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group and protection under the Torture Convention. See Application, Answer Exhibit

20. Therefore, like the alien in Kim, petitioner has "conceded" that he is deportable. For that

reason, the Immigration Judge noted that petitioner "admitted the allegations in the Notice

to Appear and conceded the charge of removal." Oral Decision of Immigration Judge,

Answer Exhibit 22. 

The Immigration Judge concluded that due to petitioner's immigration status, he was

only eligible for relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. Id. However, because

petitioner did not show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured, he was not

entitled to Convention Against Torture protection. Id. Whatever the outcome on judicial

review, that decision will not alter the undisputed fact that petitioner was convicted of a

Case 2:06-cv-01056-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/30/07 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

1

 Petitioner also cites to six additional cases that held that Section 1226(c)'s

mandatory detention requirement is unconstitutional because it does not provide for an

individualized bail hearing. See Objections at 2-5. However, these cases pre-date the

holding in Kim, which expressly concludes that Section 1226(c)'s mandatory detention

requirement does not violate due process even though it does not provide for an

individualized bail hearing. See 538 U.S. at 514, 123 S. Ct. at 1713. 

- 3 -

felony that triggers mandatory detention. Therefore, we reject the argument that Kim is

distinguishable.

Petitioner also argues that he is entitled to a bail hearing pursuant to Tijani v. Willis,

430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005). See Objections at 2. However, in so doing, petitioner does

not object to any of the grounds upon which the R & R distinguishes the holding in Tijani.

Therefore, this argument is not an objection or a request for review that requires us to engage

in de novo review of the R & R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C)).1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus

(doc. 1).

DATED this 30th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01056-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3