Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02194/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02194-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip Crawford
Respondent
Narinder Singh
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Narinder Singh, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Philip Crawford, ICE Field Office

Director, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2194-PHX-MHM (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is the petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

filed on April 1, 2009. [doc. # 32] The petitioner moves that this court issue an order instructing

the respondent to release him from detention while his current immigration appeal is pending

before the Ninth Circuit in accordance with this court’s prior order granting his petition for writ

of habeas corpus. The respondent filed a response, and the petitioner filed a reply.

 Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for a Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, deny the motion. This court’s previous order granting Singh’s habeas petition and

granting him a bond hearing does not apply to his current detention. 

//

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-02194-MHM-GEE Document 40 Filed 08/03/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Summary of the Case

Singh is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States at a date unknown

using a false passport. (Response, p. 2.) 

On August 7, 2003, Singh was convicted of spousal battery, in violation of section

242/243(e) of the California Penal Code. Id. 

On November 10, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Singh a

Notice to Appear charging him with removability because he was convicted of a crime of moral

turpitude (INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)), and he was an alien present without inspection (INA §

212(a)(6)(A)(i)). (Response, p. 3.) 

At a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Singh admitted he entered the country on

a false Swedish passport and admitted to convictions for petty theft in 1992 and theft of personal

property in 1990. Id. The IJ ordered him removed to India. Id. Singh appealed to the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA), but the BIA dismissed the appeal on June 30, 2005. Id., Exhibit

10. On July 14, 2005, Singh filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit. (Response, p.

3.) The Ninth Circuit ordered a stay of removal. Id.

In September of 2005 and October of 2006, the government conducted a Custody

Review. Id., pp. 3-4. Each time, the government decided to continue Singh’s detention. Id.,

p. 4.

On September 14, 2006, Singh filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court.

The petition was denied with leave to amend. On December 19, 2006, Singh filed his First

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. He argued he was being improperly denied any

meaningful custody review and his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) was unlawful.

(Amended petition.) 

On March 15, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the

case to the BIA for further proceedings. (Response, p. 5.)

On August 7, 2007, this court granted Singh’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

ordered the government “to release Petitioner from custody under an order of supervision, or

in the alternative, . . . provide a hearing to Petitioner before an immigration judge with the

Case 2:06-cv-02194-MHM-GEE Document 40 Filed 08/03/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

power to grant him bail unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk or will be a

danger to the community.” [doc. # 25]

On August 13, 2007, the Immigration Judge granted Singh bond in the amount of

$10,000. (Response, p. 5.) Singh posted bond and was released on August 15, 2007. Id.

On December 21, 2007, the BIA again dismissed Singh’s appeal. Id. On January 7,

2008, Singh filed his second petition for review with the Ninth Circuit. Id. The Ninth Circuit

again ordered a stay of removal. Id.

On August 13, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review and remanded the

case to the BIA for further proceedings. (Response, p. 5.) The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate

on October 8, 2008. Id., p. 6.

On December 11, 2008, the government took Singh into custody. Id.

Singh filed a motion to reopen and reconsider with the BIA, but the motion was denied

on January 5, 2009. Id. On January 21, 2009, Singh filed his third petition for review with the

Ninth Circuit. Id. The Ninth Circuit again ordered a stay of removal. Id.

On March 17, 2007, the government notified Singh of its decision to continue his

detention. Id. On April 9, 2009, an IJ held a custody redetermination hearing. Id. He issued

an order denying bond for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

Previously, on April 1, 2009, Singh filed in this court a Motion for Injunctive and

Declaratory Relief. [doc. # 32] He moves that this court issue an order instructing the

respondent to release him from detention while his current appeal is pending before the Ninth

Circuit. 

Discussion

The court construes Singh’s motion as though it were a motion to enforce judgment. See,

e. g., Gilbert v. Johnson, 490 F.2d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 1974); Zuniga v. Wrigley, 2007 WL

3340841 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Singh believes this court’s prior judgment in his favor mandates his

release again. He is incorrect. It is instructive to recall why the court granted Singh’s original

petition.

Case 2:06-cv-02194-MHM-GEE Document 40 Filed 08/03/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

When Singh filed his habeas petition, he was being held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226.

This statute governs the initial apprehension and detention of aliens to determine whether they

should be removed from the United States. Some aliens are eligible for release on bond during

this administrative process. For others, detention is mandatory. Section 1226(c) requires the

detention of certain classes of aliens, notably those aliens who have been convicted of two prior

acts of moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B), § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii).

Section 1226 governs the alien’s detention until the second phase of the statutory scheme

– the “removal period.” This period, which is described in section 1231, governs the final

detention and eventual removal of the alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231.

 The “removal period” ordinarily begins on “[t]he date the order of removal becomes

administratively final.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i). “If the removal order is judicially

reviewed and if a court orders a stay of removal,” the removal period begins on “the date of the

court’s final order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii).

When Singh filed his habeas petition, he was being detained pursuant to section 1226

because his order of removal was not administratively final. This section, however, only

authorizes detention during an “expedited” administrative period. Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d

1241, 1242 (9th Cir. 2005). It does not authorize extended periods of detention. Id. (Detention

for two years and eight months was not authorized by section 1226(c).). When the court issued

its order, Singh had been detained for approximately two years and five months. A detention

of that length is not authorized by statute. See Tijani, 430 F.3d at 1242. Accordingly, the court

granted his petition.

Singh is now in the removal period and is being held pursuant to section 1231. On

October 8, 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate affirming his removal order. At that time,

the removal period began, and the statutory justification for Singh’s detention shifted from

section 1226 to section 1231. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii); See Pathak v. Chertoff, 2008 WL

1766750 (N.D. Cal.).

Singh has a petition for review pending before the Ninth Circuit, but this petition does

not directly challenge his underlying order of removal. CA 09-70222, [doc. # 1]. Instead, it

Case 2:06-cv-02194-MHM-GEE Document 40 Filed 08/03/09 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

challenges the BIA’s decision denying his motion to reopen. Id. Accordingly, this petition does

not delay the start of the removal period pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii). Diouf v.

Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir. 2008).

Singh is no longer being held illegally pursuant to section 1226. He is in the removal

period and is being held pursuant to section 1231. The court’s prior order granting habeas relief

no longer applies to Singh’s detention. His motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief 

should be denied.

If Singh believes his current detention pursuant to section 1231 is contrary to law, he

may challenge his detention by filing another habeas petition.

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, deny the Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief filed on April 1, 2009.

[doc. # 32] 

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

10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondent.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02194-MHM-GEE Document 40 Filed 08/03/09 Page 5 of 5