Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01942/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01942-0/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 As of February 2, 2010, the motion to consolidate several

section 2241 actions with Docket No. 2:09 CV 1410, was pending before

the Honorable Susan R. Bolton.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BABAK ALIZADEH, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 09-01942 PHX GMS (MEA)

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

KATRINA KANE, JANET )

NAPOLITANO, ERIC S. HOLDER, )

JAMES KIMBLE, )

) 

Respondents. )

____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW:

Mr. Babak Alizadeh (“Petitioner”), who is represented

by counsel in this matter, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2241 on September

18, 2009. In the petition Mr. Alizadeh asserts his detention by

Respondents violates United States law and his constitutional

rights. At the time his petition was filed, Petitioner was

confined pursuant to Respondents’ authority. 

On September 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to

consolidate, seeking to consolidate his habeas action with

Docket No. 2:09 CV 1410, a case assigned to the Honorable Susan

R. Bolton.1 On October 2, 2009, Respondents filed a response in

Case 2:09-cv-01942-GMS Document 21 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 7
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 A response in opposition to Petitioner’s second motion to

consolidate his case with Docket No. 2:09 CV 1410 and other section

2241 actions was docketed in this matter on December 18, 2009. See

Docket No. 19.

-2-

opposition to the motion to consolidate. See Docket No. 7.2 

On October 19, 2009, Respondents filed a notice to the

Court asserting the petition for relief in this matter is now

moot because Petitioner has been released from detention. See

Docket No. 8. In response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause,

see Docket No. 9, on October 28, 2009, Petitioner filed a

pleading averring his habeas petition is not moot. See Docket

No. 10. On November 4, 2009, Respondents filed a reply

regarding the suggestion of mootness. See Docket No. 13. 

1. Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Iran who entered

the United States as a refugee in approximately 2001. In

September of 2009 the Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“ICE”) took Petitioner into custody and conducted him to the

Pinal County Jail in Florence, Arizona.

Federal law, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a), requires

a refugee who has been physically present in the United States

for at least one year to apply for permanent resident status.

If the refugee alien has not acquired permanent resident status

at the end of one year they shall “return or be returned to the

custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection

and examination for admission to the United States as an

immigrant.” 

Petitioner asserts that “[i]n Arizona, ICE has

consistently interpreted this statute to authorize the

Case 2:09-cv-01942-GMS Document 21 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 7
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-

indefinite detention of any refugee who has not become a lawful

permanent resident within one year of entry.” Petitioner

further argues that “§ 1159(a) violates the Constitution of the

United States and the Immigration and Nationality Act and that

no statutory or regulatory authority otherwise exists to

authorize [Petitioner’s] continued detention. Accordingly,

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate

release from immigration custody.” 

Petitioner asserts in his habeas petition that he “is

in the process of submitting an I-485 Application for Adjustment

of Status to the United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services (“USCIS”) office in Phoenix. However, Petitioner is not

currently in removal proceedings pursuant to INA § 240, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a.” Petitioner maintains that, accordingly, there is no

statutory authority for his detention by Respondents. 

Petitioner alleges:

[his] current detention is based on a broad

interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1159 promulgated

by Respondents that is inconsistent with, and

contradictory to, other provisions in the

Immigration and Nationality Act. The

Respondents’ construal of 8 U.S.C. § 1159

uses an expansive definition of the term

“custody” to justify Petitioner’s continued

detention without bond, without judicial

oversight, and without a release date. Under

the rule of constitutional avoidance, there

are numerous ways in which the reference to

“custody” in § 1159 could be interpreted to

avoid due process concerns. Since

Petitioner’s detention cannot be justified

under § 1159, Petitioner argues that his

ongoing detention is not authorized.

Petitioner asserts in the habeas petition that his

detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, and his

Case 2:09-cv-01942-GMS Document 21 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 7
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-

right to substantive due process and procedural due process of

law. As relief, the petition asks the Court to:

Issue an Order declaring that Petitioner’s

detention by Respondents is contrary to law

and unconstitutional; and 

(2) Issue an Order that Respondents

immediately release Petitioner; and 

(3) Award Petitioner his reasonable costs and

fees; and 

(4) Grant any other and further relief this

Court may deem appropriate.

2. Analysis

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention. Because the petition

for habeas relief attacks only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s

continued detention, the petition is now moot. The

case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, of the

United States Constitution “subsists through all stages of

federal judicial proceedings ... The parties must continue to

have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v.

Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249,

1253-54 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). If it appears

that the Court is without the power to grant the relief

requested by a habeas petitioner, then that case is moot. See

Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Petitioner was released from detention several weeks

after he filed his federal habeas petition. The relief that

Petitioner requested in his habeas petition, i.e., his release

from continued and potentially indefinite detention, can no

longer be granted by the Court. Therefore, this habeas action,

alleging his continued detention violates federal law and his

constitutional rights, is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d

Case 2:09-cv-01942-GMS Document 21 Filed 02/03/10 Page 4 of 7
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-

1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “there must be some

remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by

success on the petition” in order for a habeas to continue);

Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 775; Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117,

1132 (10th Cir. 2006); Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237,

1243 (11th Cir. 2002).

Petitioner contends his petition is not moot because he

may, at some point in the future, again be subject to

unauthorized detention. The United States Supreme Court has

held that speculation and conjecture of future improper conduct

is insufficient to defeat mootness, and that the “the injury or

threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not

conjectural or hypothetical.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461

U.S. 95, 101-02, 108-09, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1664-65 (1983)

(internal quotations omitted) (noting that the

“capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional

situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can

make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the

alleged illegality”). As noted by Respondents, Petitioner was

released without restriction, and without reservation of any

right to detain him in the future. 

Because Petitioner is no longer in detention, and

because his release is entirely without conditions or limits,

his habeas petition alleging that his previous detention was

unauthorized is now moot. See Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 959

(9th Cir. 2009); Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065; Qassam v. Bush, 466

F.3d 1073, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (exception to mootness for

“voluntary cessation” does not apply where there is no

Case 2:09-cv-01942-GMS Document 21 Filed 02/03/10 Page 5 of 7
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

-6-

reasonable expectation that the alleged government conduct will

recur, and interim events have completely eradicated the effects

of the alleged violation).

3. Conclusion

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because

the petition challenges only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s

continued detention and Petitioner has now been released from

detention without any restrictions or apprehension of immediate

re-detention. There is no existing case or controversy over

which this Court may exercise jurisdiction and, therefore, this

case is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Alizadeh’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice

as moot.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter,

the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a

response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules

of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

Case 2:09-cv-01942-GMS Document 21 Filed 02/03/10 Page 6 of 7
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

-7-

District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation

may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. 

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01942-GMS Document 21 Filed 02/03/10 Page 7 of 7