Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01450/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01450-0/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

1

 Petitioner seeks a stay of removal pending resolution of her Petition. She alleges

that she will be removed from the United States as soon as Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) obtains travel documents for her. But Petitioner does not claim that she

will be removed before Respondents can be heard in this matter and she does not seek a

temporary restraining order without notice to Respondents.

TERMPSREF

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Meilinda Irsan, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Katrina Kane, et al., 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1450-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner Meilinda Irsan (A95-296-550), who is represented by counsel, has filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1) and a Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #5). The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition

and respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.1

I. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Indonesia. On May 5, 2003, an Immigration Judge

(IJ) denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and for protection under the

Convention Against Torture. The IJ granted Petitioner sixty days within which to voluntarily

Case 2:08-cv-01450-MHM Document 7 Filed 08/13/08 Page 1 of 4
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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

depart from the United States. Petitioner thereafter retained an attorney, Mr. Reed, to

represent her on her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Mr. Reed filed a

timely notice of appeal with the BIA, but died before filing a brief and before the deadline

for Petitioner’s brief had expired. Mr. Reed had arranged for Mr. Sterwerf to assume

Petitioner’s case. In late August of 2004, Mr. Sterwerf’s assistant informed Petitioner that

the BIA had denied her appeal on August 9, 2004, but apparently did not tell her that the BIA

had granted her thirty days to voluntarily depart from the United States. Petitioner alleges

that on August 28, 2004, she retained Mr. Sterwerf to represent her before the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

On September 10, 2004, two days after the thirty-day deadline had run, Mr. Sterwerf

filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit. On November 22, 2004, the Ninth Circuit

dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner alleges that Mr.

Sterwerf failed to inform her that her that her petition for review had been denied. Instead,

Petitioner alleges that during the four years after the Ninth Circuit dismissed her petition for

review, Mr. Sterwerf’s office continued to tell Petitioner that her petition was still pending

in the Ninth Circuit. During those years, Petitioner married a lawful permanent resident of

the United States and gave birth to a United States citizen daughter. 

On July 8, 2008, Petitioner was taken into custody by ICE. Petitioner then learned

that her case had been dismissed by the Ninth Circuit in 2004. On July 8, 2008, Petitioner’s

husband informed Mr. Sterwerf that Petitioner had retained new counsel. Petitioner alleges

that on July 9, 2008, without her authorization, Mr. Sterwerf filed a motion to reopen with

the BIA. On July 23, 2008, Petitioner’s new counsel also filed a motion to reopen with the

BIA based on Mr. Sterwerf’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Petitioner argues that Mr. Sterwerf deprived her of her right to seek review in the

Ninth Circuit in violation of her Fifth Amendment due process right to effective assistance

of counsel in immigration proceedings. She seeks an order directing the BIA to reissue its

August 9, 2004 decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation.

////

Case 2:08-cv-01450-MHM Document 7 Filed 08/13/08 Page 2 of 4
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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

II. Jurisdiction

Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005),

the district courts no longer have habeas corpus jurisdiction to review a final order of

removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . ., including

section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, . . a petition for review filed

with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial

review of an order of removal . . . .”); Iasu v. Smith, 511 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2007) (after

the effective date of the REAL ID Act, a “district court plainly lack[s] habeas jurisdiction”

to review removal orders). But success on Petitioner’s claim that her attorney provided her

with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to timely file a petition for review with the

Ninth Circuit does not challenge the merits of a removal order. Success on that claim would

not undermine the merits of an order of removal – it would only entitle Petitioner to an order

directing the BIA to reenter its order dismissing her appeal, thereby restarting the thirty-day

deadline for filing a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit. Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d

979 (9th Cir. 2007). The REAL ID Act therefore does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction

to consider Petitioner’s claim for relief. See Id., at 980. Accordingly, the Court will require

Respondents to answer the Petition.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Petition (Doc. #1),

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #5), and this Order upon the United States Attorney

for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at the office

of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The Clerk of Court also must send by certified mail a copy of the Summons,

Petition, and this Order to the United States Attorney General pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and

to Respondents pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2)(A).

(2) Respondents must answer the Petition within 20 days of the date of service.

Petitioner may file a reply within 20 days of service of Respondents’ answer.

////

Case 2:08-cv-01450-MHM Document 7 Filed 08/13/08 Page 3 of 4
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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

(3) Respondents must respond to Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

as soon as possible, but no later than Monday, August 25, 2005. Petitioner may file a reply

within 5 days of Respondents’ response.

(4) If Respondents intend to remove Petitioner from the United States prior

to the Court’s disposition of this matter, Respondents must file a “Notice of Intent to

Remove” and serve a copy on Petitioner within such time as is reasonable and sufficient

to allow Petitioner to file a motion for temporary restraining order.

(5) The Clerk of Court must forthwith fax a copy of this Order to the United States

Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the attention of Cynthia Parsons at (602) 514-7760,

and to District Counsel Patricia Vroom at (602) 744-2400.

(6) Except for the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #5), which will remain

pending before this Court, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns

pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings

and a report and recommendation.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01450-MHM Document 7 Filed 08/13/08 Page 4 of 4