Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01149/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammad Ali
Petitioner
Phillip Crawford
Respondent
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent

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

Mohammad Ali, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Phillip Crawford, Field Officer Director,

ICE; Alberto Gonzales, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1149-PHX-EHC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Mohammad Ali filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

on April 24, 2006, arguing that his detention for four years while his removal proceedings

have been pending is unlawful. See Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 1242 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Court agrees and recommends that his petition be granted.

BACKGROUND

Ali is a native and citizen of Fiji, admitted into the United States on February 9, 1989

as a lawful permanent resident (Doc. #11, Exh 1). On September 22, 1999, Ali was

convicted in California Superior Court for Possession of a Controlled Substance,

methamphetamine, in violation of section 11377(A) of the California Health and Safety

Code, and for Vehicle Theft/Taking a Vehicle Without the Owner's Consent, in violation of

section 10851(A) of the California Vehicle Code. Following a revocation of his probation,

he was sentenced to 16 months and two years respectively (Id., Exh 2). 

Case 2:06-cv-01149-EHC Document 12 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 6
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 -

On February 13, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Notice

to Appear, charging Ali with removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), alleging that at any time after

admission he had been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43)(B),

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), relating to the illicit trafficking in a controlled substance and

under section 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), relating to a theft offense for which

the term of imprisonment of at least 1 year was imposed (Id., Exh 3). On March 17, 2003,

Ali admitted the factual allegations but contested the charges of removability (Id., Exh 4).

The Immigration Judge designated Fiji as the country of removal; Ali requested withholding

of removal and benefits under the Convention against Torture (Id., Exh 4).

At the April 9, 2003 hearing, the Immigration Judge found both convictions to be

particularly serious crimes, making Ali ineligible for withholding of removal. Because of

his aggravated felony conviction, the Immigration Judge found that he was also not eligible

for asylum. Finally, the Immigration Judge found that Ali had not established that it was

more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Fiji. Ali was ordered

removed to Fiji; he reserved appeal (Id., Exh 4, 5). On September 9, 2003, the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal (Id., Exh 7). On October 2, 2003, Ali filed

a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit; on February 24, 2004, the Ninth Circuit

dismissed his petition for review for lack of jurisdiction (Id., Exh 8, 9). 

On April 6, 2004, Ali filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court.

See Ali v. Gonzales, CIV 04-0690-PHX-EHC (DKD). In his petition, Ali argued that his

California state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance did not qualify as

an aggravated felony, citing the Ninth Circuit's initial opinion, later withdrawn, in CazarezGutierrez v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2004). On July 20, 2005, the District Court

ordered the case transferred to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to section 106(c)

of the REAL ID Act of 2005. On September 13, 2006, the Ninth Circuit granted the

Government's motion to remand the petition for review to the BIA, in light of the intervening

Case 2:06-cv-01149-EHC Document 12 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Although the Government has not provided the Court with the motion to remand, and

the Ninth Circuit order filed by Ali does not reference the reason for remand, the

Government noted the intervening decisions in its response. See Doc. #11 at 8, fn 1.

- 3 -

decisions in Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 382 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2004) and Penuliar v.

Gonzales, 435 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2006).1

 

DISCUSSION

The Court notes initially that because of the Ninth Circuit's most recent stay of

removal, the removal period has not commenced, and therefore 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and not

§ 1231, governs Ali's current detention. Respondents argue that although the requirement

is not jurisdictional, the Court should decline to review the habeas petition because Ali does

not allege that he ever requested bond or a bond hearing. Ali does not remain in custody

because he failed to request bond; he is detained pursuant to DHS's most recent custody

review and denial of release. Under these circumstances, the Court declines to require proof

of a request for bond or a bond hearing as a prerequisite to filing a petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241.

In addition, Respondents contend that Ali's detention during removal proceedings has

been brief, and his current detention is lawful under Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003),

and Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005). They maintain further that the only reason

Ali was detained on his first petition for review and in his first habeas proceeding (a period

of almost one year) is because of his continued litigation, which has resulted in an extension

of the removal period. 

In Kim, where the alien had conceded deportability, "and hence, [was] subject to

mandatory detention under § 1226(c)," 538 U.S. at 523, the Supreme Court held that

mandatory detention pursuant to § 1226(c) was constitutional "for the brief period necessary

for [his] removal proceedings." 538 U.S. at 512. Ali has never conceded deportability in this

case. He makes the same argument in 2007 that he initially made four years earlier: his

Case 2:06-cv-01149-EHC Document 12 Filed 02/16/07 Page 3 of 6
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 -

convictions do not constitute removable offenses or make him ineligible for withholding of

removal.

The situation that Ali finds himself in is similar to the alien's situation in Zadvydas v.

Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), where "detention's goal is no longer practically attainable, [and]

detention no longer bears a reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual was

committed." 533 U.S. at 690. In a situation where the alien concedes deportability, "[s]uch

detention necessarily serves the purpose of preventing deportable criminal aliens from fleeing

prior to or during their removal proceedings, thus increasing the chance that, if ordered

removed, the aliens will be successfully removed." Kim, 538 U.S. at 527. Ali has never

conceded deportability.

Finally, this case is unlike Kim, where "the detention... is of a much shorter duration,"

with "a definite termination point." 538 U.S. at 529. It more closely resembles the situation

in Zadvydas, where the period of detention was "indefinite" and "potentially permanent." 

533 U.S. at 690-91. The amount of time Ali has been detained for the administrative

proceedings is still ongoing, given the recent remand to the BIA - longer than the

proceedings in Kim, and even the time period in Tijani, with no "definite termination point."

The reasons for detention in this case are also similar to those in Tijani. In Tijani, the

alien's detention for almost two and one half years was "not the result of a criminal

conviction; nor is it because he faces imminent removal...[but] because the government may

be able to prove he is subject to removal." 430 F.3d at 1241 (Tashima, J, concurring)

(emphasis in original). As Judge Tashima explains, "Tijani was convicted in California of

offenses that have never been found by a court or by the BIA to trigger mandatory

detention...Today, nearly 30 months later, Tijani remains in mandatory detention while courts

continue to sort out whether his offenses actually fall within the reach of the mandatory

detention statute." 430 F.3d at 1241. (emphasis added). In this case, Ali, like Tijani, has

never conceded removability. The courts and the administrative agencies are "continu[ing]

Case 2:06-cv-01149-EHC Document 12 Filed 02/16/07 Page 4 of 6
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

"[T]he IJ took almost seven months to issue his decision; the BIA took just short of

an additional 13 months." 430 F.3d at 1241, n.3 (Tashima, J., concurring).

- 5 -

to sort out whether his offenses actually fall within the reach of the mandatory detention

statute." 

In Tijani, two-thirds of the time he had been detained was due to the length of the

administrative proceedings.2

 However, the Ninth Circuit also considered important the fact

that "the vast majority of Tijani's detention-over 22 of the nearly 30 months that have so far

elapsed-has occurred while the BIA and this Court have considered his appeals." Tijani, 430

F.3d at 1246 (emphasis added). In this case, the majority of Ali's detention-41 of the 48

months that have so far elapsed-has also occurred either during the administrative

proceedings (which are still ongoing with no definite termination point), or due to his appeals

to the Ninth Circuit. Although it did not necessarily occur as the result of "an unreasonable

delay by the INS in pursuing and completing deportation proceedings," the Court finds that

detention for a period of four years is by reason of the sheer length of time unreasonable and

no longer justified. It is not the "expedited removal" required by Tijani. Instead, it has

reached the point where it has "become necessary then to inquire whether the detention is not

to facilitate deportation, or to protect against risk of flight or dangerousness, but to

incarcerate for other reasons." Kim, 538 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mohammad Ali's petition for writ of

habeas corpus be GRANTED (Doc. #1).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the District Court order Ali's release from

custody under an order of supervision, or in the alternative order Respondents, within 60

days of the District Court's Order, to provide a hearing to Ali before an immigration judge

with the power to grant him bail unless Respondents establish that he is a flight risk or will

be a danger to the community.

Case 2:06-cv-01149-EHC Document 12 Filed 02/16/07 Page 5 of 6
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 - 6 -

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 ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to 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. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01149-EHC Document 12 Filed 02/16/07 Page 6 of 6