Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00250/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00250-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jon Gurule
Respondent
Razak Iyal
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 On February 10, 2015, Petitioner Razak Iyal, who was then detained at the 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a 

pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 

I. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION 

Petitioner asserts that he has been detained for more than six months beyond the 

date of his final order of removal, in violation of the decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 

U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner seeks release from detention under 

an order of supervision. However, Petitioner has been released from custody under an 

order of supervision dated May 6, 2015. (Doc. 8-1.) Therefore, the Petition is now moot. 

 

Razak Iyal, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Jon Gurule, Deputy Field Office 

Director, United States Department of 

Homeland Security Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, 

Respondent. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 2:15-cv-00250-DLR-JZB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:15-cv-00250-DLR Document 11 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. FACTS OF THE CASE 

 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Ghana. (Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 6, Ex. 1.) On August 

6, 2013, Petitioner applied for admission to the United States at the San Ysidro port-ofentry in California, and requested asylum in the United States. (Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 6, Ex. 

2.) Petitioner was detained by United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement 

(“ICE”) officials on that date. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 

 On August 9, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security served Petitioner with 

an unexecuted Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, charging him with 

violating Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as 

an alien not in possession of a valid entry document. (Doc. 6, Ex. 3.) On August 27, 

2013, the government issued a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner with 

inadmissibility to the United States under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(1), as an immigrant not 

in possession of a valid entry document. (Id., Ex. 6.) 

 On February 11, 2014, following a custody redetermination hearing wherein the 

government bears the burden of proving that the alien is a danger or a flight risk, an 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Petitioner release from custody if he could post a 

$7,500.00 bond. (Id., Ex. 7.) Petitioner avers he could not afford to pay the bond at that 

time. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 

 On August 1, 2014, Petitioner appeared before an IJ and presented his claim for 

asylum and for withholding of removal. The IJ denied Petitioner’s request for asylum and 

Petitioner’s request for withholding of removal, and ordered Petitioner removed from the 

United States to Ghana. (Id.; Doc. 6, Ex. 8.) Petitioner waived his right to appeal the 

order of removal. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s order of removal became final 

on August 1, 2014. 

 Petitioner avers he has cooperated with the Ghanian Consulate to acquire travel 

documents. (Id.) On November 13, 2014, Petitioner was denied release from 

immigration detention under an order of supervision, pending his removal to Ghana. (Id.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00250-DLR Document 11 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

 On February 23, 2015, six months after the date his order of removal became final, 

Petitioner was served with a second Decision to Continue Detention, which stated that 

travel documents were expected to be issued for Petitioner’s repatriation to Ghana. 

(Doc. 6, Ex. 10.) 

 B. FEDERAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

 On February 10, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to § 2241, asserting that 

he has been detained for more than six months beyond the date his order of removal 

became final, in violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. 

Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. 1.) In his habeas Petition, Petitioner seeks his 

immediate release from detention, under an order of supervision. (Id.) Petitioner alleges 

that, because his removal is not significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable 

future, his continued detention violates the holding of Zadvydas. 

 On March 23, 2015, Respondent filed a Response to the Petition. (Doc. 6.) 

Petitioner filed a Reply to the Response to his Petition on April 20, 2015. (Doc. 7.) 

 On May 8, 2015, Respondent filed a Notice stating that Petitioner has been 

granted the relief requested in his habeas petition, i.e., Petitioner has been released from 

custody under an order of supervision dated May 6, 2015. (Doc. 8, Ex. A) (“Because the 

Service has not affected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law, 

it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be at large under the 

following conditions ...”). Therefore, Respondent argues, the Petition is now moot. 

 On August 4, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring the 

Petitioner, on or before August 18, 2015, to file a response showing good cause why this 

action should not be dismissed as moot. (Doc. 9.) The Clerk mailed copies of the 

Court’s Order to both Petitioner’s address on the docket and his New York address 

included in the Order of Supervision. The docket reflects that Petitioner has not filed the 

required response. 

III. PETITIONER’S PETITION IS MOOT. 

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody pursuant to the 

Case 2:15-cv-00250-DLR Document 11 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

judgment of a court in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “The case or controversy requirement of Article III admonishes 

federal courts to avoid premature adjudication and to abstain from entangling themselves 

in abstract disagreements.” U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1208 (10th Cir. 

1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court must dismiss a case as 

moot if, at any point, it becomes certain either that “‘the allegedly wrongful behavior 

could not reasonably be expected to recur,’” Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw 

Environmental Assoc. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (citation omitted), or that there is 

no effective relief remaining for the court to provide. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 

149, 150 (1996). 

The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a habeas claim that 

is moot. See, e.g., McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Petitioner’s case is rendered moot by the fact that he has received the relief requested. 

See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing and collecting 

cases wherein a petitioner’s release from detention or parole or their removal rendered a 

habeas petition moot); Flores–Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 710 & n.3 (9th Cir. 

2008) (dismissing as moot a challenge to immigration detention without a hearing 

because the alien had subsequently received a hearing). Compare Levine v. Apker, 455 

F.3d 71, 77 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding habeas petition was not moot where petitioner’s 

supervised release left open the possibility of the court’s issuance of effectual relief). 

IV. CONCLUSION

 Petitioner no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of his argument because 

he has been afforded the relief sought from Respondent. Because Petitioner no longer 

has a personal stake in the relief sought, his Petition is moot. Abbot v. Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, 771 F.3d 512, 513 (9th Cir. 2014). See also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 

(1998); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED 

Case 2:15-cv-00250-DLR Document 11 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

WITHOUT 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 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and 

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 14 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 judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 28th day of August, 2015. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00250-DLR Document 11 Filed 08/28/15 Page 5 of 5