Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01149/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mir Afsar
Petitioner
Nancy Alcantar
Respondent
Michael Chertoff
Respondent
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

* All facts asserted here are those alleged in the petition. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIR AFSAR,

Petitioner,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General;

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security; NANCY

ALCANTAR, San Francisco District Field

Director of Detention and Removal,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

Department of Homeland Security,

Respondents. /

No. C 06-01149 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Amir Afsar petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking his release

on bond from federal custody at the Santa Clara County Jail in San Jose. He states colorable

claims and therefore is entitled to an order directing respondents to show cause why a writ

should not issue. 

STATEMENT*

 

Petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan who first entered the United States in 1991. He

applied for political asylum in 1992. He left the United States and was paroled back into the

country in 1996. The next year, he married a United States citizen. She filed an immigrant visa 

Case 3:06-cv-01149-WHA Document 4 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

application on his behalf. He left the country again in 1999 and was paroled back later that

year. 

In 2002, his application for adjustment of immigrant status was denied because he had

separated from his wife and did not show that the marriage was entered into in good faith. He

was divorced from his wife and remarried briefly. On September 23, 2005, he married a third

United States citizen. On December 23, 2005, he was taken into federal custody and placed in

removal proceedings. The government charged him with not having a valid unexpired visa at

the time of his entry into the United States, and for making a willful misrepresentation of a

material fact to obtain a visa. On January 29, the government denied petitioner bond without

giving any reasons. 

On February 16, he filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that he is

being held in violation of (1) federal regulations requiring that the government individually

determine whether or not to release someone on bond, (2) the Fifth Amendment right to due

process of law and (3) “his constitutional right to be free from government custody because the

District Director did not provide any rational basis for his decision.” 

ANALYSIS

A person may apply for a writ of habeas corpus if he is being held in custody under the

authority of the United States or in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28

U.S.C. 2241(c)(1), (c)(3). In applying, he or she must allege the facts concerning detention, the

name of the person who has custody over him or her and “by virtue of what claim or authority,

if known,” custody is maintained. 28 U.S.C. 2242 ¶ 2. The applicant is entitled to an order

directing the respondent to show cause why a writ should not be issued if it does not appear

“from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C.

2243 ¶ 1. Such summary dismissal is only appropriate when the allegations in the petition are

vague, conclusory, “palpably incredible” or “patently frivolous or false.” Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 3:06-cv-01149-WHA Document 4 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The instant petition does not require summary dismissal. Respondents therefore are

ordered to show cause why a writ should not issue on one or more of the grounds alleged in the

petition. 

CONCLUSION

 The CLERK SHALL SERVE respondents and respondents’ counsel with a copy of the

petition, all attachments to it and this order. Respondents SHALL FILE AND SERVE UPON

PETITIONER, BY MAY 15, 2006, AN ANSWER to the petition. Respondent SHALL, BY THAT

DATE, ALSO SERVE A FULL RECORD OF THE IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS involving

petitioner. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he SHALL FILE A TRAVERSE with the

Court and serve it upon respondent on the earlier of June 14, 2006, or thirty days after the

answer is filed and served, whichever is earlier. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01149-WHA Document 4 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 3