Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03068/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03068-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Crawford
Respondent
Hang Nam Yoon
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

1

The detailed background and procedural history of this case is set forth in Respondents’

Response to the Petition (Doc. 9) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 11).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hang Nam Yoon,

Petitioner,

v.

Phillip Crawford, et. al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3068-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Michelle H. Burns for a Report and Recommendation. On August 22, 2007, the Magistrate

Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Doc. 11). On September 21, 2007,

Respondent filed his Objection (Doc. 14) to the Report and Recommendation. On October 18,

2007, Petitioner filed his Response to Respondent’s Objection (Doc. 17). After considering

Judge Burns’s Report and Recommendation and the arguments raised in the subsequent

Objections and Response thereto, the Court issues the following ruling. 

BACKGROUND1

On December 22, 2006, Hang Nam Yoon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that his detention for more than three years while his

removal proceedings have been pending is unlawful (Doc.1). Petitioner is a native and a citizen

Case 2:06-cv-03068-SMM Document 19 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

of South Korea admitted into the United States as an immigrant visitor. (Doc. 91, Exh. 1, 2.) On

March 21, 2002, Petitioner was convicted in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County,

for the following offenses: Terrorist Threats, in violation of California Penal Code (CPC)

section 422, Cutting A Utility Line, in violation of CPC section 591, and Inflicting Corporal

Injury on Spouse/Cohabitant, in violation of CPC section 273.5(a). (Exh. 3.) He was sentenced

to serve 4 years in a California prison. (Id.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

(9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that the issue of Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1226(c),

which provides, in pertinent part, that “(t)he Attorney General shall take into custody any alien

who . . .(B) is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered in section

1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title. . . .”

In its objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the government attempts to distinguish Tijani

v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 1242 (9th Cir.2005), a case involving an alien whose liberty had been

deprived by the government for over two years and thus whose case was remanded to the

district court to grant the habeas petition unless the government provided the alien a bail hearing

before an Immigration Judge. It contends that Tijani should be distinguished because in that

case because the administrative proceedings went on for 20 months, and in that case the

petitioner was not an aggravated felon. The Magistrate Judge points out however that the Tijani

court, did not premise its decision on the length of the administrative proceedings or the failings

of the government. The court simply said, “[W]e interpret the authority conferred by 1226(c)

as applying to expedited removal of criminal aliens. Two years and eight months of process is

Case 2:06-cv-03068-SMM Document 19 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 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

2

The Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations establish that

Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that he will not pose a danger to the community and

that he is not a flight risk upon determinations of custody. In setting forth the standards for the

release of criminal aliens, 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(3) states:

- 3 -

not expeditious; and the foreseeable process in this court, where the government’s brief in

Tijani’s appeal of the removal was only filed last month after two extensions of time, is a year

or more.” In the pending case, Petitioner’s administrative proceedings lasted eight months, and

his appeal has been pending now for nearly a year. His entire time in custody is now three years

and eight

months. Thus this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Petitioner’s process has

not been expeditious.

The government also argues that detention is proper because it has been prolonged by

Petitioner’s own litigation, citing Doherty v. Thornburgh, 943 F.2d 204, 211 (2nd Cir. 1991).

In Doherty, the Second Circuit held that an eight year detention prior to deportation was

justified in part because petitioner’s extended detention was caused by his own litigation, stating

that the petitioner “has possessed, in effect, the key that unlocks his prison cell . . .if Doherty

had agreed to deportation in the first place, he would not have been detained at MCC for the

past eight years.” Id. at 212. The Magistrate Judge correctly pointed out that however that the

Second Circuit’s reasoning in Doherty, is inconsistent with the holding in Tijani. See Tijani, 430

F.3d at 1242. In the latter case, the Ninth Circuit held a detention of two years and eight months

was not permissible under section 1226, despite the fact that detention was extended by the

petitioner’s attempts to avoid removal. Id. This court is obliged to follow Tijani. Accordingly,

after having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation and the Objections and Response thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate

Judge adequately addressed Respondent’s arguments. However, the Court differs with the

Magistrate in the recommendation regarding burden of proof in establishing whether Petitioner

is a flight risk or will pose a danger to the community upon determination of custody.2

Case 2:06-cv-03068-SMM Document 19 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 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

Criminal aliens eligible to be considered for release . . . must first

demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, that release would not

pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property. If an alien 

meets this burden, the alien must further demonstrate, by clear and

convincing evidence, that the alien is likely to appear for any scheduled

proceeding (including any appearance required by the Service of EOIR)

in order to be considered for release in the exercise of discretion.

8 C.F.R. § 2361(c)(3). This burden for discretionary release is consistent with the burden for

release under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(2), which applies in limited circumstances involving witness

protection, and provides that release is available if “the alien satisfies the Attorney General that

the alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property and is likely to

appear for any scheduled proceedings.” Id.

- 4 -

Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation in part and rejects it in part.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts in part and rejects in part the

Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 11).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

insofar as Respondent shall GRANT Petitioner a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge

no later than Friday, March 7, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is REJECTED

insofar as Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that he is not a flight risk and will not

pose a danger to the community upon determination of custody.

DATED this 2nd day of January, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-03068-SMM Document 19 Filed 01/02/08 Page 4 of 4