Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00538/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00538-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sandeep Singh Sidhu,

Petitioner,

v. 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security, Eric Holder, Jr., United States

Attorney General, Director of Immigration 

and Naturalization Service (USCIS),

Respondents.

No. CV 14-00538 PHX PGR (MEA)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

Petitioner, proceeding in this matter pro se, docketed a petition pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 on March 14, 2014. Petitioner is detained by the United States at the 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention Center in Florence, Arizona. 

Petitioner applied for admission to the United States on June 2, 2013, at Nogales, 

Arizona. See Doc. 1, Attach. B. In his habeas petition, Petitioner, a native of India, 

contends he is eligible for asylum as a Sikh and that his petition for asylum has been 

pending since June 2, 2013. Id. Petitioner asserts in the petition that he has been 

detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security for longer than six 

months and that, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. 

Davis, he is entitled to a bond hearing regarding his release on bond pending the 

conclusion of his removal proceedings. Id. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 

Case 2:14-cv-00538-PGR Document 9 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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

issued a stay of Petitioner’s order of removal pending resolution of his proceedings 

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See id., Attach. B.

In response to the habeas petition, “Respondents request that this Court order the 

Immigration Court in Florence, Arizona, to hold a bond hearing for Petitioner within 

thirty days.” Doc. 8 at 2. Respondents further allow:

Petitioner has been detained longer than six months without a bond hearing 

before an IJ. Pursuant to Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1144 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (“[T]he mandatory provisions of § 1225(b) simply expire at six 

months, at which point the government’s authority to detain the alien would 

shift to § 1226(a), which is discretionary and which we have already held 

requires a bond hearing.” (Citation omitted.)), Respondents agree that 

Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing before an IJ.

Id. at 3.

Therefore,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28. U.S.C. § 2241 be granted and that the Court order the Immigration Court in 

Florence, Arizona, to hold a bond hearing for Petitioner within thirty days of the 

date the Court’s order is issued.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Case 2:14-cv-00538-PGR Document 9 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Dated this 12th day of January, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-00538-PGR Document 9 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 3