Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_07-cv-00775/USCOURTS-alnd-4_07-cv-00775-0/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 (federa

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

WAQAS Z. MALIK, ]

]

Petitioner, ]

]

vs. ] CV-07-VEH-RRA-0775-M

]

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., ]

]

Respondents. ]

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The magistrate judge

entered a report and recommendation recommending that the respondents’ motion to dismiss be

granted and that the action be dismissed. The petitioner filed objections. 

Based upon the petitioner’s objections to the report and recommendation, the court ordered

a further response from the respondents. As a result, both parties filed additional submissions,

including evidentiary exhibits. The court will further address the injunction issue.

The respondents state:

Malik was legally taken into custody “for a valid cause” on two occasions by

ICE officers pursuant to an order of removal. When he was originally released from

custody on December 11, 2006, Malik claims that the reason given by HQPDU was

“no reasonably foreseeable likelihood of removal.” (Petitioner’s Reply, p. 7).

However, within two months, in February 2007, ICE was informed that the Embassy

of Pakistan was ready to issue a travel document and place Malik on a chartered

flight scheduled to depart on March 6, 2007. Therefore, on February 7, 2007, when

Malik was taken into custody the second time, ICE had verification that travel

documents were readyto be issued byPakistan. (Declaration of Smith). Malik’s seat

on that chartered flight was denied only after Malik had a personal face-to-face

interview with Embassy officials.

Malik will again be taken into custody for deportation when ICE receives

verification that travel documents will be issued since it is the responsibility of ICE

officers to detain deportable aliens pending repatriation. However, subject to the

FILED

 2007 Oct-15 PM 04:08

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:07-cv-00775-VEH -RRA Document 18 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 3
2

Supreme Court’s ruling in Zadvydas, some deportable aliens are granted release, as

was Malik, pending travel arrangement.

Further, Malik misinforms this court when he states that he was re-detained

on false pretext, i.e. that no travel documents had been obtained. (Objection, p. 4).

As evidenced by Exhibits A and B, the Embassy was ready to issue Malik’s travel

document for a March 6, 2007 flight. (Exhibit B, p. 3 to Declaration). The only false

pretext was committed by Malik, who, for whatever reason, thwarted DHS’ efforts

in getting him on that chartered flight.

Malik has been released on the minimum conditions due a deportable alien,

i.e. an Order of Supervision. He is not entitled to frustrate the efforts of deportation

officers and then seek to have his release accorded an indefinite status. ICE

deportation officers have not behaved wrongfully in any manner in their efforts to

deport Malik and their actions have been in accordance with the standards for

enforcement activity. Malik’s detention, in both instances, has not been a result of

“wrongful behavior,” but rather dedicated action by deportation officers in removing

Malik from the United States, as they are charged to do.

Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Objections, pp. 9-10.

An applicable part of the Code of Federal Regulations states:

2) Revocation for removal. The Service may revoke an alien’s release under this

section and return the alien to custody if, on account of changed circumstances, the

Service determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed

in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thereafter, if the alien is not released from

custody following the informal interview provided for in paragraph (h)(3) of this

section, the provisions of § 241.4 shall govern the alien’s continued detention

pending removal.

8 C.F.R. §241.13(i)(2).

An injunction may not be used to enjoin a legal act. Taking the petitioner into custody in

order to deport him, and then releasing him when it was determined that he could not be deported

at that time, was not an illegal act. The respondents reasonably believed the respondent was ready

to be deported. The petitioner himself was not candid as to his country of birth. Finally, the mere

possibility that the petitioner may in the future be taken into custody improperly, under the guise of

deportation, which has not yet happened to this petitioner, will not support an injunction. 

Case 4:07-cv-00775-VEH -RRA Document 18 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Wherefore, the court accepts the report and recommendation, and hereby adopts and approves

the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of the

court. Based on the report and recommendation, the parties’ additional submissions, and the court’s

additional statements in this memorandum opinion, it is determined that this habeas petition is due

to be dismissed. An appropriate order will be entered.

DONE this the 15th day of October, 2007.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

 

Case 4:07-cv-00775-VEH -RRA Document 18 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 3