Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00267/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00267-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eduardo Martinez-Herrera, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Phillip Crawford, ICE Field Office

Director, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-0267-PHX-NVW (DKD)

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On February 6, 2007, Eduardo Martinez-Herrera filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that he is not subject to mandatory detention

under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and is entitled to a bond redetermination hearing before an

immigration judge, because he was taken into custody by the Department of Homeland

Security more than five years after he was released from state custody. The Government

initially argued that because Martinez-Herrera is now in the 90-day immediate removal

period during which his detention is mandated by statute, he is not entitled to habeas relief.

On April 26, 2007, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommended that Martinez-Herrera’s

petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. See Doc. #5. 

In his Objections to the Report and Recommendation and Motion for Reconsideration,

Martinez-Herrera clarified that there was no final order of removal, and that his appeal was

still pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. See Doc. #6. The Government

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 6
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

Martinez-Herrera argues that because his "release" from custody for the crime

subjecting him to mandatory detention occurred five years ago, § 1226(c) should not apply.

Although this is a strong argument, see Quezada-Bucio v. Ridge, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (W.D.

Wash. 2004), the Court recommends relief on other grounds.

2

During his removal proceedings, DHS issued a bond determination of “No Bond”

(Id., Exh 11). Upon Martinez-Herrera’s October 6, 2005 motion for a change in the custody

status brought pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1), the immigration judge determined that

- 2 -

admitted the error, and the District Court referred the case for a further Report and

Recommendation. The Court recommends that the petition be granted.

BACKGROUND

Martinez-Herrera is a native and citizen of Guatemala, who entered the United States

in 1988 without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer, and without the

permission of the Attorney General (Doc. #4, Exh 1). On October 25, 1999, he was

convicted in Utah County, Utah of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property, Attempted Purchase/

Possession of a Dangerous Weapon, and Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He was

sentenced to one year in jail with credit for time served, and was released from custody in

2000.

Over five years after his release from state custody,1

 on September 28, 2005, the

Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging Martinez-Herrera

with removability pursuant to § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States

without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place

other than as designated by the Attorney General; §1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), as an alien convicted

of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the

essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense)

or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime; and § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), as an alien

convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which

constitute the essential elements of a violation of any law or regulation of a State, the United

States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (Id., Exh 3).2

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 6
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

he lacked jurisdiction to redetermine custody status (Id., Exh 12). Petitioner moved for bond

re-determination on November 13, 2006; the immigration judge again determined that he had

no jurisdiction (Id., Exh 13). On appeal, the BIA agreed, citing Matter of Rojas, 23 I&N

Dec. 117 (BIA 2001). In light of the Court's recommendation, it need not address this issue.

3

On February 9, 2007, the BIA dismissed Martinez-Herrera's bond appeal (Doc. #14).

The Government erred in its initial response in characterizing this as a dismissal of the appeal

of the removal order. Based upon that error, the Government contended that the removal

period had begun, and that Martinez-Herrera was still within the statutorily authorized 90-

day detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i). Relying on the Government's avowal, the

Court recommended dismissal of his petition. 

- 3 -

On November 8, 2005, Martinez-Herrera admitted the allegations, and indicated a

desire to apply for adjustment of status, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (Id., Exh 4, 11/8/05 R.T. at 22-25). On January 26,

2006, the immigration judge determined that Martinez-Herrera was ineligible for a section

212(h) waiver of inadmissibility, or for voluntary departure, and denied his applications for

adjustment of status, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture, and ordered him removed to Guatemala (Id., Exh 5 at 5, 7-14). 

On appeal, Martinez-Herrera moved to remand to the immigration judge to allow him

to consider the application for adjustment of status, on the basis that the state court had

amended his controlled substance conviction from “Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia”

to “Solicitation to Use or Possess Drug Paraphernalia” (Id., Exh 6). On June 12, 2006, the

Bureau of Immigration Appeals granted his motion (Id., Exh 7). On September 13, 2006, an

immigration judge found that Martinez-Herrera qualified for a section 212(h) waiver and

granted his application for adjustment of status (Id., Exh 8). DHS appealed, and the BIA

sustained the appeal (Id., Exh 9). 

A review of the Ninth Circuit Docket indicates that on January 23, 2007, MartinezHerrera filed a Petition for Review and a Motion for Stay; on February 2, 2007, the Ninth

Circuit issued a stay of removal. On February 7, 2007, the immigration judge entered an

order of removal (Id., Exh 10). 3

 Martinez-Herrera appealed the order of removal on March

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 6
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

"[T]he IJ took almost seven months to issue his decision; the BIA took just short of

an additional 13 months." 430 F.3d at 1241, n.3 (Tashima, J., concurring).

- 4 -

5, 2007; briefing was due by April 12, 2007 (Doc. #6). The appeal is still pending before the

BIA.

DISCUSSION

During the removal proceedings, beginning on September 28, 2005, when MartinezHerrera was issued the Notice to Appear, and continuing today because of his appeal pending

before the BIA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) governs Martinez-Herrera's detention. Of the 21 months,

80% of the time was spent in detention during administrative proceedings. In Kim v.

Demore, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), the Supreme Court held that mandatory detention of criminal

aliens pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) was constitutional "for the brief period necessary for

their removal proceedings." 538 U.S. at 512. The alien’s detention in Kim lasted six months.

In Tijani v. Willis, the Ninth Circuit held that “the authority conferred by § 1226

[applies] to expedited removal of criminal aliens.” 430 F.3d 1241. In Tijani, a period of 30

months, including both administrative and court proceedings, was held to be not expeditious.

In Tijani, two-thirds of the time the alien had been detained was due to the length of the

administrative proceedings.4

 However, the Ninth Circuit also considered important the fact

that "the vast majority of Tijani's detention - over 22 of the nearly 30 months that have so far

elapsed - has occurred while the BIA and this Court have considered his appeals." Tijani,

430 F.3d at 1246 (emphasis added).

In this case, 80% of Martinez-Herrera's detention-16 months of the 21 months that

have so far elapsed - has also occurred during the administrative proceedings (which are still

ongoing with no definite termination point). A large portion of the time elapsed occurred as

the result of "an unreasonable delay by the INS in pursuing and completing deportation

proceedings." It is not the "expedited removal" required by Tijani. Instead, it has reached

the point where it has "become necessary then to inquire whether the detention is not to

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 6
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 also noteworthy that Martinez-Herrera has been granted relief by one

immigration judge in the form of a section 212 waiver of inadmissibility. See Nadajarjah

v. Gonzalez, 443 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006). 

- 5 -

facilitate deportation, or to protect against risk of flight or dangerousness, but to incarcerate

for other reasons." Kim, 538 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Finally, this case is unlike Kim, where "the detention... is of a much shorter duration,"

with "a definite termination point." 538 U.S. at 529. It more closely resembles the situation

in Zadvydas, where the period of detention was "indefinite" and "potentially permanent." 

533 U.S. at 690-91. The amount of time Martinez-Herrera has been detained for the

administrative proceedings is still ongoing, given the recent remand to the BIA - longer than

the proceedings in Kim, and even the time period in Tijani, with no "definite termination

point."5

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Eduardo Martinez-Herrera’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED (Doc. #1).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the District Court order MartinezHerrera's release from custody under an order of supervision, or in the alternative order the

Government, within 60 days of the District Court's Order, to provide a hearing to MartinezHerrera before an immigration judge with the power to grant him bail unless the Government

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

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. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 5 of 6
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 - 6 -

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

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

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 6 of 6