Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00422/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00422-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANH DUC NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary 

of Homeland Security; et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 10-0422 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, an alien detained on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security at the

Santa Clara County Jail in San Jose, California, has an aggravated felony conviction and has

been ordered removed from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). He has

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his

continued detention pending removal. 

Petitioner alleges that he was ordered removed from the United States by an

Immigration Judge on December 9, 2009. Petitioner claims his continued detention pending

deportation was unlawful because he is from Vietnam, "the Vietnamese government refuses

to issue the travel documents necessary for petitioner to return and will most likely not issue

the travel documents." Petition attach. A at 1. He alleges that his detention is only necessary

to effectuate his removal, but there is no likelihood of that removal because Vietnam will not

take him. 

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-00422-MHP Document 2 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Unless special circumstances exist, an alien ordered removed whose removal is not

reasonably foreseeable may not be detained indefinitely, but only for "a period reasonably

necessary to secure removal." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001). Detention for

six months is "presumptively reasonable," however. Id. at 701. "If, after 6 months, the alien

makes a showing that there is 'no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably

foreseeable future' then the government must establish such a likelihood, or the existence of

special circumstances, or the alien must be released from custody." Khotesouvan v Morones,

386 F.3d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S at 696, 701). A period of

detention of less than ninety days after an order of removal does not violate due process even

where there is no reasonable forseeability of future repatriation and a habeas petition alleging

such grounds should be dismissed. Khotesouvan, 386 F.3d at 1299-1300. 

Khotesouvan plainly precludes relief on the petition. Petitioner filed his federal

habeas petition 60 days after he was ordered removed. He thus was within that 90-day

period where the detention did not violate due process as a matter of law, even if repatriation

to his home country was not reasonably foreseeable. The petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice to filing a new action if his detention pending removal exceeds that time allowed

by law. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 28, 2010 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00422-MHP Document 2 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 2