Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02584/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02584-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nancy Alcantar
Respondent
Michael Chertoff
Respondent
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Binyam Negash Kifle
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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND PROPOSED ORDER

C-07-2584-MJJ 1

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS, SCSBN 9990

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Acting Chief, Civil Division

EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6915

FAX: (415) 436-6927

Attorneys for Respondents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BINYAM NEGASH KIFLE,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security;

NANCY ALCANTAR, Field Office

Director, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement; and ALBERTO

GONZALES, Attorney General of the

United States, 

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2584-MJJ

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Petitioner, by and through his attorney of record, and respondents, by and through their

attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to approval to the Court, to dismissal of the aboveentitled action without prejudice, in light of the following:

I. Background

(1) The petitioner was ordered removed to Sudan by an Immigration Judge, Office of the

Immigration Judge, San Diego, California, on December 2, 2005.

(2) The petitioner and respondent Chertoff waived their rights to appeal the removal order to

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Case 3:07-cv-02584-MJJ Document 11 Filed 06/22/07 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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND PROPOSED ORDER

C-07-2584-MJJ 2

(3) On December 6, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted to remove

the petitioner to Sudan, but the Sudanese government refused to accept him.

(4) On April 24, 2006, the DHS requested that the government of Eritrea issue a travel

document, but no response to that request was received.

(5) On February 15, 2007, the government of Ethiopia issued a travel document for the

petitioner’s removal.

(6) On March 9, 2007, the DHS informed the petitioner by letter that it intended to remove the

petitioner to Ethiopia, a country that was not designated in the petitioner’s removal proceeding.

(7) In the March 9, 2007 letter, the DHS informed the petitioner that if he believes he will face

persecution or torture in Ethiopia, he could request protection from removal, i.e., withholding of

removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against

Torture, and that any claim for protection from removal would have to be supported by evidence

demonstrating prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal to Ethiopia.

(8) The DHS also informed the petitioner in the March 9, 2007 letter that if the petitioner

presented such evidence, it would consider joining in a motion to reopen the petitioner’s removal

proceeding for the sole purpose of considering the petitioner’s claim for withholding of removal.

(9) The petitioner responded to the DHS’s March 9, 2007 letter with evidence in support of his

claim that he will be persecuted and tortured in Ethiopia based on fact that his parents were

subjected to persecution and his father is a personal enemy of Meles Zenawi, the current head of

the Ethiopian regime; and that the petitioner is both a member of a social group subject to

persecution, his family, and an Eritrean national subject to persecution by the current government

in Ethiopia, along with evidence of the current human rights record of the Ethiopian government.

(10) On March 26, 2007, the DHS declined to join in a motion to reopen the petitioner’s

removal proceedings.

(11) The petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings with the Immigration

Judge, asserting that he would be subjected to persecution and/or torture if removed to Ethiopia as

set forth in paragraph 9, supra, and that such removal without hearing as to his claims regarding

his fear of persecution and/or torture was in violation of the December 2, 2005 final order of

Case 3:07-cv-02584-MJJ Document 11 Filed 06/22/07 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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND PROPOSED ORDER

C-07-2584-MJJ 3

removal and in violation of applicable statutes and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Amendment to the federal constitution. Petitioner also filed a motion to enforce the express terms

of the December 2, 2005 order of the Immigration Judge.

(12) On April 18, 2007, the DHS opposed petitioner’s motion to reopen his removal

proceedings, arguing that: (a) contrary to allegations in petitioner’s motion, the government did

not “stipulate” to remove the petitioner to any particular country, and thus, there was no

stipulation for the Immigration Court to affirm; and (b) petitioner’s motion to reopen was based

purely on speculation as to what might happen to him in Ethiopia. The DHS specifically did not

argue that the petitioner’s motion to reopen was untimely or otherwise barred on jurisdictional

grounds.

(13) On May 4, 2007, the Immigration Judge denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen, noting

that it was untimely and determining that the “[petitioner’s] claim based on events regarding his

father occurring over 27 years ago do not give rise to a prima facie claim that the respondent

would be tortured in Ethiopia for purposes of deferral of removal.”

(14) The petitioner’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s May 4, 2007 order was timely filed an

and served, and is currently on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

(15) On May 15, 2007, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court,

alleging that his removal to Ethiopia would violate his rights secured under the Immigration and

Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that his continued

detention violates his rights under the United States Constitution and that he has a medical

condition untreated in detention.

(16) A hearing on the habeas petition is currently scheduled for July 10, at 9:30 a.m.

II. Agreement

(1) The DHS agrees not to remove the petitioner at any time prior to the entry and receipt by

the parties of an order by the BIA affirming the Immigration Judge’s May 4, 2007 order denying

the petitioner’s motion to reopen.

(2) The DHS agrees to submit a filing with the BIA, which states that it does not object to the

timeliness of the motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) and 8

Case 3:07-cv-02584-MJJ Document 11 Filed 06/22/07 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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND PROPOSED ORDER

C-07-2584-MJJ 4

C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and will ask the BIA not to affirm the Immigration Court on the basis of

untimeliness, but will argue for affirmance on other bases. The petitioner does not waive the issue

of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i) or any other

provision of law in entering into this stipulation.

(3) The DHS agrees to provide the petitioner with a post order custody review pursuant to 8

C.F.R. § 1241.4, including review by ICE Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit.

(4) The petitioner agrees to dismiss this action without prejudice.

(5) The parties agree that if the BIA affirms the Immigration Judge’s May 4, 2007 order and if

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately concludes that it lacks jurisdiction

over petition for review proceedings because the proper federal court forum to litigate the

petitioner’s claims was in federal district court in habeas corpus proceedings, rather than in the

Ninth Circuit in petition for review proceedings, or for any other reason, the petitioner may re-file

his habeas petition in federal district court and the parties can litigate whether the district court has

jurisdiction over the habeas petition at that point.

Date: June 15, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

/s/

EDWARD A. OLSEN

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Respondents

/s/

Date: June 15, 2007 JAMES TODD BENNETT, Esq.

Attorney for Petitioner

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

6/18/2007

Case 3:07-cv-02584-MJJ Document 11 Filed 06/22/07 Page 4 of 4