Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04161/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Crawford
Respondent
Ajay Kumar
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ajay Kumar,

Petitioner,

v.

Phillip Crawford, 

Respondent.

CIV 05-4161-PHX-DGC-(BPV)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On December 20, 2005, Ajay Kumar, (“Petitioner”), currently in the custody of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (“Service”) and confined in the Immigration Service

Processing Center in Florence, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by A Person

in Federal Custody (“Petition”), pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent filed a

Response to the Petition for Habeas Corpus on April 7, 2006, with Exhibits 1 through 11

attached. A corrected response ("Response") was filed on June 12, 2006. 

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, on February 15, 2006, this matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco for a Report and Recommendation. The

Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the record,

enter an order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Case 2:05-cv-04161-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 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

1

 All exhibit numbers in this Report and Recommendation are references

to exhibit numbers in the exhibits attached to Respondents' " Response

in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." 

2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a citizen and native of India. (Ex. 1, p.1)1 Petitioner arrived in the United

States through Chicago O'Hare International Airport on March 20, 2001. (Id.) Petitioner

presented with no entry documents, but claimed a fear of returning to India. (Id., Ex. 2, p.2-6)

Following an interview, the asylum officer determined that Petitioner had established a credible

fear of persecution. (Ex. 2, p.5.) 

On March 22, 2001, notice was issued to Petitioner directing him to appear before an

Immigration Judge and charging Petitioner with removability under § 212(a)(7)(7)(A)(i)(I) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), as an immigrant who, at the time of application

for admission , is not in possession of a valid entry document, and § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA

as an immigrant who, by fraud or wilful misrepresentation, seeks to procure a visa, other

documentation, or admission into the United States, or other benefits provided under the INA.

(Ex. 3, p. 7-8) 

Petitioner was released on parole on April 6, 2001. (Ex. 4.) After failing to attend his

removal hearing on July 25, 2002, Petitioner was ordered removed in absentia. (Ex. 5.) 

Nearly three years later, Petitioner was arrested at a bus station on July 16, 2005, and

taken into DHS custody. (Ex. 6.) Deportation Officer Tracy Miranda-Binkley states in an

affidavit that she requested Petitioner's assistance in completing the Indian travel document

travel application in order for the Embassy Consular officer to issue a travel document for him,

but that Petitioner responded by stating he would not fill out any paperwork until after he spoke

with his attorney. (Ex. 8.) Miranda-Binkley states that Petitioner did fill out the forms, but left

several items blank or incomplete. (Ex. 8.) 

DHS requested removal documents from the Indian Embassy on August 23, 2005. (Ex.

7.) 

Case 2:05-cv-04161-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 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

On October 27, 2005, DHS issued Petitioner a Decision to Continue Detention, informing

Petitioner that his custody status had been reviewed, and it had been determined that he would

not be released from custody at that time. (Ex. 9.) The decision was based on the Petitioner's

failure to provide supporting verification that he would have a place of residence, a place of

employment, nor any financial support if he were to be released from the Bureau of Immigration

and Customs Enforcement's ("ICE's") custody. (Ex. 9, p. 1.) Additionally, DHS noted that

Petitioner had failed to provide evidence that he had made efforts to assist ICE in pursuing the

issuance of travel documents. (Id.) 

On February 7, 2006, DHS again issued Petitioner a Decision to Continue Detention.

(Ex. 10.) The decision was based on a review of Petitioner's file record and/or personal

interview and consideration of any information submitted to ICE reviewing officials. (Id.) DO

John Schultz submitted an affidavit indicating that, pursuant to an agreement reached between

ICE representatives and representatives of India's Ministry of External Affairs, it would be

possible to obtain travel documents in instances where a passport number was available,

provided the passport had been issued after 1995. (See Ex. 11.) 

DO Schultz stated in his affidavit that, on April 6, 2006, when he attempted to check

Petitioner's passport number, the system to check the passport number was not working, but was

expected to be functional in one-weeks time. (Id.) In the absence of verification by passport

number, which would be immediate, it might still be possible to prepare travel document

presentations, as presently done by the United Kingdom, which resulted in an issue rate of 60%

and took approximately 90 days from the date of submission to accomplish. (Id.) Additionally,

travel documents could issue in as little as a week if a copy of an Indian driver's license or a

copy of an Indian election card are presented. (Id.) 

On December 20, 2005, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this

Court. Respondents submitted a deficient Response to the Petition on April 7, 2006 and a

corrected Response to the Petition with Exhibits 1-11 attached on June 12, 2006. 

Case 2:05-cv-04161-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 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

Petitioner filed this petition on December 20, 2005, alleging that despite receiving a final

removal order on July 16, 2005, his removal cannot be effected and that this is unlawful

indefinite detention, contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678

(2001), because INS has exceeded the permissible detention period pending his removal to India.

Petitioner alleges that as of the date the instant petition was filed, he had been detained pending

removal for longer than six months, the period deemed presumptively reasonable by the United

States Supreme Court. 

DISCUSSION

The federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 confers jurisdiction upon the federal

courts to hear cases involving statutory and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period

detention. Zadyvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 682 (2001). 

When a final order of removal has been entered, the Government ordinarily secures the

alien’s removal during a subsequent 90-day statutory removal period. See 8 U.S.C. §

1231(a)(1)(A) (1996). However, further detention is authorized: “An alien ordered removed ...

[pursuant to certain sections] ... may be detained beyond the removal period...” See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a)(6) (1994). 

Thus, detention for more than 90 days pending removal is clearly authorized, without

statutory limit as to how long the alien may be detained. However, as discussed below, case law

finds implicit constitutional limits in certain circumstances. Interpreting 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6),

the U. S. Supreme Court concluded that six months is a "presumptively reasonable" period of

detention pending removal. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2505, 150

L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). The Court held that indefinite detention is unconstitutional; after six

months, the government's authority to continue the detention depends on whether there is a

"significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Id.

Petitioner's final order of removal was issued on July 25, 2002, however, he was not

detained on the order until July 16, 2005. He has been detained nearly fourteen months,

considerably longer than the six months the Supreme Court found presumptively reasonable in

Zadvydas. 

Case 2:05-cv-04161-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 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

The burden then shifts to the government, which must respond with evidence sufficient

to rebut Petitioner's showing. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. at 2505. 

Is there a significant likelihood of removal?

As of April 6, 2006, the affidavit submitted by DO Schultz indicated a strong likelihood

that DHS would obtain travel documents for Petitioner within the next 90 days. As of the time

of this Report and Recommendation, however, there is no indication that DHS has done so, and

thus, the Magistrate Judge finds that, absent a showing by Respondent contrary to this Report,

there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. More than

enough time has elapsed for verification by passport number, Indian drivers license or election

card, or, alternatively, presentation to through the pilot program with the Ministry of External

Affairs via the U.S. Embassy in Delhi. Under the circumstances, continued detention of

Petitioner is unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute.

Does Petitioner's refusal to cooperate in obtaining travel documents justify his continued

detention?

 Respondent contends that Petitioners continued detention is justified because Petitioner

has refused to cooperate in obtaining documents for his removal, and is, in fact thwarting those

efforts.

Pursuant to statute, the detention period may be extended beyond a period of 90 days “and

the alien may remain in detention during such extended period if the alien fails or refuses to

make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's

departure or conspires or acts to prevent the alien's removal subject to an order of removal.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(1)(C). 

In Pelich v. I.N.S., 329 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit refused to place the

petitioner in that case into “the confines of Zadvydas” because, unlike the detainees in Zadvydas,

petitioner “was responsible for his plight,” having steadfastly refused to fill out a Polish passport

application, which directly impedes Poland's ability to determine whether the petitioner qualified

for Polish travel documents; providing INS with conflicting information regarding his name, his

parent's names, his parents' birthplaces and residences, his birthplace and his nationality; in

Case 2:05-cv-04161-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 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

essence, the petitioner had the “keys to freedom in his pocket.” Pelich, 329 F.3d at 1059-60

(citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit concluded that “Zadvydas does not save an alien who fails

to provide requested documentation to effectuate his removal. The reason is self-evident: the

detainee cannot convincingly argue that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the detainee controls the clock.” Id. at 1060. 

It is not clear in this instance exactly how Petitioner is refusing to cooperate in his

removal. Respondent's Exhibit 7 appears to be a form wherein Petitioner claims that his passport

has been lost, that he does not remember the date of issuance, that he does not remember the

exact date of loss or circumstances under which it was lost. Petitioner has signed the form, and

there is no indication by Respondent that they have reason to believe the answers are untruthful.

(Ex. 7.) Although initially, Petitioner expressed reluctance to fill out the paperwork until after

he had spoken with his attorney, it appears that he in fact filled out the form and signed it within

three weeks of the initial request to do so. (Ex. 7, 8.)

DO Miranda-Binkley states in her affidavit that, since the date of August 23, 2005, Mr,

Kumar has not provided our office with any additional information or documents that would aid

in proving his citizenship in order to assist in obtaining a travel document from the Embassy of

India. (Ex.8.) 

There is no statement in the Affidavit that would support an assertion that Respondent

has reason to believe that Petitioner is lying about his statements concerning his passport, other

than he knows what his passport number is, which could have been taken off of other documents,

or that Respondent has reason to believe that Petitioner is able but unwilling to provide the office

with additional information or documents and what these additional information or documents

might in fact be. (Ex. 8.) Petitioner may simply be unable to provide DHS with further

information. Respondent has not demonstrated that Petitioner has done anything other than

cautiously consult with his attorney and, perhaps not so cautiously, lose his passport. 

The Decision to Continue Detention, issued on February 7, 2006, however, indicated that

Petitioner was advised that copies that could verify Petitioner's identity, citizenship, and/or

nationality such as a birth certificate and or passport would be needed from petitioner or his

Case 2:05-cv-04161-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 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

family. (Ex. 10.) There is no indication that Petitioner cooperated in obtaining these documents

or other documents that would verify his identity, citizenship or nationality. Furthermore, the

Petitioner does not assert in his Petition that he has cooperated with officials to secure travel

documents, and, therefore, Petitioner cannot meet his burden to show there is no significant

likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and continued detention is proper

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(1)(C). See Lema v. I.N.S., 341 F.3d 853, 857. 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter an order

denying Petitioner's Petition. 

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the above reasons, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RECOMMENDS that the

District Court, after its independent review, issue an Order DENYING Petitioner's Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus filed December 20, 2005.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections with the

District Court within ten days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.

If the objections are not timely filed they may be deemed waived. If any objections are filed, this

action should be designated with the following case number: CV 05-04161-PHX-DGC.

DATED this 12th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04161-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 Page 7 of 7