Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00780/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00780-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee

---

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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ping Ping Zhou, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Michael Chertoff, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0780-PHX-DGC (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On April 12, 2007, Petitioner Ping Ping Zhou filed an Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that immigration officials were holding

her unlawfully. Petitioner arrived here unlawfully from the People’s Republic of China in

August 2003 and was taken into custody. She was subsequently released under an order of

supervision in June 2004. On March 21, 2007, however, Petitioner was served with a Notice

of Revocation of Release and was again taken into custody by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Petitioner contends that revocation of her release was improper because she is not a

flight risk and her detention is not necessary to secure her removal. Additionally, Petitioner

claims that she should be released because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the

reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is

no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will accept an alien’s return in the

Case 2:07-cv-00780-DGC Document 13 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 Respondents explain that Petitioner was supposed to be removed on May 24, 2007

but because a stay of removal was issued in a companion case filed by Petitioner, CV 07-

0785-PHX-DGC (ECV), Petitioner was not removed on that date. 

- 2 -

reasonably foreseeable future, the INS may not detain the alien for more than the

presumptively reasonable period of six months); Marquez v. INS, 346 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th

Cir. 2003) (the post-IIRIRA presumptive six-month limit on the detention of admitted aliens

ordered deported, and inadmissible aliens ordered removed, also applies to aliens ordered

excluded under pre-IIRIRA law).

On June 14, 2007, Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #9). They argue in their response that Zadvydas does not apply here

because the government was able to secure travel papers for Petitioner and she has not been

detained for more than the presumptively reasonable period. Respondents contend that

Petitioner is likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.1

 

On March 11, 2008, Respondents filed a Notice of Filing Executed Warrant of

Removal (Doc. #12). The Notice provides evidence establishing that Petitioner was in fact

removed from the United States to the People’s Republic of China back on August 7, 2007.

In light of Petitioner’s removal, Respondents contend that the habeas petition is moot.

The court agrees. Respondents’ evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has been

deported and is no longer in custody. As a result, the issue of indefinite detention no longer

exists and this action is moot. The court will therefore recommend that the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus be denied.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00780-DGC Document 13 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #3) be DENIED

and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

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. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 12th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00780-DGC Document 13 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 3