Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03335/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03335-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMIH HUSSEIN ZABADI,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security; ALBERTO

GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General; NANCY

ALCANTAR, San Francisco Field Office

Director, U.S. Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement; and TOBY WONG,

Correctional Captain, Santa Clara County,

Respondents. /

No. C 05-03335 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO CLARIFY

INTRODUCTION

The government has moved for clarification of this Court’s order freeing Samih Hussein

Zabadi, an alien facing deportation, from federal custody as early as tomorrow if a $2500 bond

is posted on his behalf. On April 25, Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks ruled that petitioner

was entitled to release on bond because he was not a flight risk and did not pose a danger to the

community. Immigration authorities now want this Court to allow it to keep petitioner in

custody if the Board of Immigration Appeals stays Judge Marks’s decision to release him on

bond. They also want more general approval to pursue administrative relief from the bond

decision. Petitioner opposes the motion. This order GRANTS clarification but otherwise rules

against the government, holding that, absent a contrary decision by a higher judicial court,

petitioner may be detained beyond 3 p.m. tomorrow only if he does not post bond. 

Case 3:05-cv-03335-WHA Document 43 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

STATEMENT

Petitioner has been held in federal custody for nearly twenty-two full months. The

government first sought his deportation for overstaying a visa. Later, he was convicted of a sex

crime and incarcerated by the state. More than two years after his release, immigration

authorities picked him up as part of a dragnet for sex criminals who were not citizens. The

Department of Homeland Security then held him under the purported authority of a mandatorydetention statute requiring that certain criminal aliens be detained without bond pending a

decision about whether to deport them. See former 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2) (1996). On November

22, 2005, this Court found that the statute did not authorize petitioner’s detention. The

government was ordered to release him by tomorrow (November 30) on $2500 bond unless it

obtained emergency relief from the Ninth Circuit in the interim. On the following day,

judgment was entered in favor of petitioner and against all respondents (see, generally, Order

Granting Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Judgment). 

ANALYSIS

As the record stands, Judge Marks set bond after finding that petitioner did not pose a

flight risk or danger to the community. Zabadi File No. A70 830 132 at 4–6 (Immigration Ct.

Apr. 25, 2005). A stay by the BIA pending its further review would not vacate those findings. 

It would only have the effect of suspending the effectiveness of the release order. The only way

for the BIA to undo Judge Marks’s findings would be a decision on the merits. 

If the BIA reverses either of Judge Marks findings, on flight risk and danger to

community, the government is free to use statutes other than former Section 1252(a)(2) to

detain petitioner. The government has not, as far as this Court has been informed, appealed

those findings. It has merely sought a stay of the release order (see, generally, Shugall Decl.,

Exh. A, Motion for Emergency Stay of Bond Determination Decision, Zabadi (BIA Nov. 23,

2005)). A stay could be issued without reaching the merits of Judge Marks’s bond findings. 

The equities in this case militate in favor of petitioner, who has been in detention since

February 2004. If a mere stay issued and were allowed to trump this Court’s order that

petitioner be released tomorrow, he would surely languish many more months before the BIA

Case 3:05-cv-03335-WHA Document 43 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

issued its decision on the merits. The government is free, however, to seek expedited review by

the BIA on the merits while petitioner is out on bond. 

CONCLUSION

The government is ORDERED to release petitioner on November 30 at 3 p.m., provided

he properly has posted bond at that hour, unless a higher judicial court rules otherwise. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03335-WHA Document 43 Filed 11/29/05 Page 3 of 3