Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01410/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01410-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kolok Kolok, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Eric H. Holder, et al. , 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-1410-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 6, 2009, alleging that

his continued detention was not authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act and

violated his constitutional rights. At the time he filed his Petition, he had been in custody for

over 60 days. He was being held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pursuant

to Title 8, U.S.C. §1159 (a) which at that time ICE interpreted as authorizing the continued

detention of any refugee who had not become a lawful permanent resident within one year

of entry. Petitioner had entered the United States as a refugee on August 22, 2002 and as of

the date he had been taken into custody, almost seven years later, had not applied for and

acquired lawful permanent residency status in the United States. 

Before his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus could be adjudicated Petitioner's

application for adjustment was denied and the Department of Homeland Security had issued

a Notice to Appear placing Petitioner in removal proceedings. On May 13, 2010 Petitioner

Case 2:09-cv-01410-SRB Document 49 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

was ordered removed to his country of origin and at the time of the issuance of the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation was being detained under 18 U.S.C. §1231. Upon

learning of the conclusion of his removal proceedings, the Magistrate Judge ordered

Petitioner to show cause why his Habeas Petition should not be dismissed as moot.

Petitioner responded to the Order to Show Cause arguing against mootness on September 19,

2010. On October 4, 2010 Respondents filed a reply to Petitioner's response asserting that

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus had become moot.

On December 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied as moot. In concluding

that the Petition was moot, the Magistrate Judge considered Petitioner's argument that this

case was not rendered moot because it fell within the "capable of repetition yet evading

review" exception to mootness. He argued ICE has a long-standing policy of detaining

refugees under 8 U.S.C. §1159(a), that the average length of detention is less than the amount

of time required to adjudicate a habeas petition and, therefore, he and other refugees will be

deprived of any opportunity to seek judicial review of their detention if the Court finds that

a petition had become moot as a result of the legal authority for detention changing or the

person being released. 

Since Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. §1159(a), Immigration and Customs

Enforcement issued a memorandum intended as guidance explaining that decisions about the

detention of unadjudicated refugees must be made in accordance with 8 U.S.C. §1226 and

8 C.F.R. §287.3(d). The memorandum specifically advises that in the absence of an

emergency or other extraordinary circumstances a determination concerning detention must

be made within 48 hours after which time the alien must be released or placed in removal

proceedings. This memorandum, originally issued in Arizona on November 10, 2009, was

distributed to all ICE field offices on May 20, 2010, advising that a refugee's failure to adjust

status is not a proper ground for detention, that detention must be pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226,

and that the determination must be made within 48 hours whether to release the alien or place

him or her in removal proceedings. 

Case 2:09-cv-01410-SRB Document 49 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

In response to the Order to Show Cause, Petitioner argued that this memorandum

should not be relied upon to show that ICE has discontinued its policy of detaining refugees

under §1159(a). The Magistrate Judge disagreed and found no exceptions to mootness.

Specifically the Magistrate Judge found that once the government commenced removal

proceedings and charged Petitioner with removability his detention was mandatory under

§1226 based upon a prior assault conviction. At the time of the issuance of the Report and

Recommendation Petitioner was lawfully detained under §1231 because of the existence of

a final order of removal. That change in the authority under which Petitioner was detained

made his Petition challenging the detention under §1159(a) moot. The Magistrate Judge

rejected the application of the limited exceptions to mootness argued by Petitioner. First,

Petitioner is not in any real or immediate threat that he will be subject to continued detention

or future detention under 8 U.S.C. §1159. Second, the ICE memorandum dictating the

authority for detention and a narrow time frame for making the decision whether to release

the alien or place him in removal proceedings makes any future detention under §1159 as to

this Petitioner or any other similarly situated ones speculative. The Magistrate Judge also

found that Petitioner's argument that other refugees have or will be subject to continued

detention under §1159 not to form an exception to mootness. 

In his objections Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the

present Petition does not meet the "capable of repetition" exception to mootness because it

failed to acknowledge that "similarly-situated persons" could be effected by the same

allegedly unconstitutional procedures as the Petitioner and because Petitioner presents

evidence attached to his objections showing that there is still an ongoing policy of detaining

refugees pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1159 despite ICE's recent guidance. Finally, Petitioner

objects claiming that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the Petition did not meet the

"voluntary cessation" exception to mootness because the guidance issued by ICE violates

current case law as being implemented by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration

Appeals. 

In reply, Respondents cite numerous decisions by other judges of this Court

Case 2:09-cv-01410-SRB Document 49 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 5
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 -

dismissing similar petitions for mootness and arguing that the Magistrate Judge correctly

recommended that the Petition should be dismissed as moot because, in his objections,

Petitioner acknowledged that "he is unlikely to be detained under §1159 in the future" and

that Petitioner had misconstrued the law and relied on unsubstantial and vague factual

allegations to argue that one of the narrow exceptions to mootness applies.

Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation will be overruled and the

Court will dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot.

As an initial matter, the Court rejects the Declaration of Brian Wolf as providing any

admissible evidence to show that the issues raised in Petitioner's case fall within the "capable

of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness. Wolf's declaration does not provide

any admissible evidence that since the issuance of the guidance ICE continues to hold

unadjusted refugees pursuant to §1159(a). Wolf's anecdotal accounts of his assistance to

several unadjusted refugees and his observations in connection with that assistance are not

evidence. Moreover, the Court rejects Petitioner's argument that the ICE memorandum falls

within the "voluntary cessation" exception to mootness. There is no evidence in this case

that this guidance was adopted with the express purpose of avoiding this litigation and the

Court agrees that through this guidance Respondents have met their burden of showing that

there is no reasonable expectation of improper future detentions under §1159(a).

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's Objections to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-01410-SRB Document 49 Filed 02/10/11 Page 4 of 5
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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

as moot.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01410-SRB Document 49 Filed 02/10/11 Page 5 of 5