Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01943/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01943-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sasa Buzancic, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, Field Office Director,

ICE; Eric H. Holder, Attorney General of

the United States; Janet Napolitano,

Secretary of the Department of

Homeland Security; and John Crowther,

Warden of Florence Service Processing

Center,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1943-PHX-DGC (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner Sasa Buzancic is a citizen of Bosnia who entered the United States as a

refugee in 2003. He was taken into custody by the United States Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) in early September 2009 for having failed to become a lawful

permanent resident within one year of having entered the United States as required by

8 U.S.C. § 1159. On September 18, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 seeking a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from custody. Doc. 1. He argues

that ICE has interpreted § 1159 to authorize his indefinite detention in violation of the

Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id.

Petitioner was released from custody on October 15, 2009. Doc. 19-1 at 8-10.

Magistrate Judge Burns has issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the petition

Case 2:09-cv-01943-DGC Document 54 Filed 01/31/11 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

1

After his initial release in October 2009, Petitioner was convicted of possession of

marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Doc. 19-1 at 16-23. He subsequently was granted a

waiver of admissibility and, on February 24, 2010, ICE released him from custody to allow

him to obtain vaccinations necessary to grant his application for adjustment of status.

Doc. 41-1.

- 2 -

be denied as moot. Doc. 51. Petitioner has filed objections (Doc. 52) and Respondents have

replied (Doc. 53). No party has requested oral argument. For reasons that follow, the Court

will accept the R&R and deny the petition as moot.1

 

I. Legal Standard.

A party may file written objections to an R&R within ten days after being served with

a copy of the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must

undertake de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are

made. See id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

II. Analysis.

“Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual,

ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990).

Article III generally “denies federal courts the power ‘to decide questions that cannot affect

the rights of litigants in the case before them[.]’” Id. (citation omitted). This case or

controversy requirement “subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings[.]” Id.

Petitioner’s release in October 2009 negates the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus,

that is, “to secure immediate release from illegal physical custody.” Picrin-Peron v. Rison,

930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). “Under certain circumstances, a petitioner who has been

released may nevertheless meet the ‘case or controversy’ requirement by establishing that

an exception to mootness applies.” Alizadeh v. Kane, No. CV-09-1942-PHX-GMS (MEA),

2010 WL 5146743, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2010) (citing Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371,

376 n.3 (2005)). Petitioner asserts that his petition for writ of habeas corpus is not moot

Case 2:09-cv-01943-DGC Document 54 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

because the “capable of repetition” and “voluntary cessation” exceptions apply.

A. Capable of Repetition.

Petitioner acknowledges that “he is unlikely to be detained under § 1159 in the

future.” Doc. 52 at 3. He nonetheless objects to the R&R on the ground that it “errs in

limiting the ‘capable of repetition’ doctrine to cases in which the same party must again be

subject to the same action.” Id.

Petitioner’s reliance on United States v. Brandau, 578 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2009), is

misplaced. The discussion of the “capable of repetition” exception in that case “was based

on information ‘that strongly suggested’ that the policy of [full shackling at initial court

appearances] was ongoing, including statements made by government counsel confirming

the status of the policy.” Alizadeh, 2010 WL 5146743, at *3 (brackets omitted). The Court

concurs with the finding by Judge Burns (Doc. 51 at 8-9) that the written guidance provided

by ICE in November 2009 and May 2010 governing detention of unadjusted refugees under

§ 1159 – specifically, that a determination must be made within 48 hours whether to release

an alien or place him in removal proceedings (Doc. 50-1 at 3-8) – demonstrates the absence

of an ongoing policy of indefinite detention. Petitioner has not shown otherwise. See Doc.

51 at 9.

Petitioner’s reliance on United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), is

also misplaced. The criminal defendants in Howard, like the ones in Brandau, were

“challenging an ongoing government policy.” 480 F.3d at 1010 (emphasis added).

Furthermore, the defendants in Howard sought “to represent interests broader than their

own[.]” Id. Petitioner, by contrast, has sought only his immediate release from custody. See

Doc. 1 at 3 (Petitioner “petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from

custody); at 4 (Petitioner “seeks a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate release

from immigration custody”); at 7-8 (Petitioner “argues that his ongoing detention is not

authorized” and “his continued incarceration is unlawful”); at 9 (requesting an order that

Respondents “immediately release Petitioner”) (emphasis added). Petitioner, “who only

sought relief for himself in his habeas petition, cannot properly forestall a mootness dismissal

Case 2:09-cv-01943-DGC Document 54 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

under the ‘capable of repetition’ exception by recharacterizing his petition as a generic

challenge to ICE’s § 1159 detention policy.” Doc. 41 at 3, Vue v. Kane, No. CV-09-1939-

PHX-PGR (MHB) (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2011).

A policy of indefinite detention under § 1159 is ongoing, Petitioner asserts, because

“an immigration judge has no jurisdiction to conduct removal proceedings for a refugee who

has not received a finding of inadmissibility from USCIS.” Doc. 52 at 5-6. But Petitioner

cites no case law or statute in support of this assertion. He has not shown an ongoing policy

of indefinite detention under § 1159, and therefore has not established the “capable of

repetition” exception to mootness. 

B. Voluntary Cessation.

Under the “voluntary cessation” exception, the mere cessation of alleged unlawful

activity does not render litigation moot unless the party asserting mootness makes clear that

the “‘allegedly wrongful behavior could not be expected to recur.’” Friends of the Earth,

Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (citation omitted). The

Court finds that Respondents have sufficiently met their burden of showing that ICE’s

adoption in 2009 and 2010 of guidance policies regarding detention of unadjusted refugees,

coupled with the declaration of Director Kane detailing efforts made to ensure that those

policies were being implemented, “has made it clear that the allegedly wrongful § 1159-

related detention policies underlying this action cannot reasonably be expected to recur.”

Doc. 41 at 3, Vue v. Kane, No. CV-09-1939. Judge Burns found, correctly, that the

“voluntary cessation” exception does not apply in this case. Doc. 51 at 9-13.

C. ICE’s Conduct in Other Cases.

Petitioner objects (Doc. 52 at 9) to the finding by Judge Burns that ICE’s conduct in

Bangjeglavic v. Kane, No. CV-09-2523-PHX-NVW (ECV), demonstrates compliance with

the guidance memoranda, that is, although the petitioner “was initially detained in excess of

the time allotted, once his file was reviewed – pursuant to the new guidelines – he was

promptly released” (Doc. 51 at 13). Petitioner also notes that in Gelee v. Kane, CV-10-388-

PXH-PGR (MHB), the petitioner was held for over two weeks before being placed in

Case 2:09-cv-01943-DGC Document 54 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

removal proceedings. Doc. 52 at 9-10.

The Court does not disagree with Judge Burns. ICE’s conduct in Bangjeglavic

demonstrates a good faith effort to comply with the guidance memoranda and not detain

unadjusted refugees indefinitely under § 1159. Moreover, ICE’s conduct in both

Bangjeglavic and Gelee predates the guidance memorandum issued by Executive Director

Chaparro in May 2010. Doc. 50-1 at 5-8. That memorandum explicitly provides that “upon

the arrest of an unadjusted refugee upon reasonable belief of removability, a DRO Field

Office must determine, no later than 48 hours after the arrest, whether to release the

individual or issue a Notice to Appear[.]” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Where no

determination has been made “within the initial 48-hour period,” ICE officials are instructed

to “release the alien[.]” Id. at 7. Petitioner has presented no evidence showing that ICE

officials have failed to follow this directive.

III. Conclusion.

Petitioner has been released from custody. He “has neither demonstrated that there

is a reasonable risk that he will be detained in the future nor that the policy of detaining

refugees indefinitely under § 1159 is ongoing.” Alizadeh, 2010 WL 5146743, at *3. His

petition for a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from custody is moot. See id.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Burns’ report and recommendation (Doc. 51) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Sasa Buzancic’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is

denied as moot.

3. A certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01943-DGC Document 54 Filed 01/31/11 Page 5 of 5