Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-51248

Summary Calendar

COLIN A. ROACH

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

ERIC H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.

Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CV-459

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Colin A. Roach appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We AFFIRM.

In an appeal such as this, we review the district court’s findings of fact for

clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Day v. Quarterman, 566 F.3d 527,

535 (5th Cir. 2009). We apply the same standard of review to the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge where the magistrate judge has decided the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 21, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51248

2

case under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Lockette v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 817 F.2d 1182,

1185 (5th Cir. 1987). 

On August 16, 2007, an immigration judge found Roach removable under

Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as an alien

convicted of a violation of any law relating to a controlled substance, other than

a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of

marijuana. Roach’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was

dismissed on December 20, 2007. Since that time, Roach has been detained. See

8 U.S.C. § 1231. He has filed a series of motions to reconsider or reopen his case

with the BIA, all of which have been dismissed or denied. 

On April 20, 2008, Roach filed a Section 2241 petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in district court, challenging his arrest and subsequent detention as

unconstitutional. With the consent of the parties, the case was assigned to a

United States magistrate judge for all proceedings and the entry of final

judgment. The magistrate judge found Roach’s initial arrest authorized under

8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1). Further, his continued detention was found to be

authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and constitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis,

533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Specifically, the magistrate judge found that by his

repeated filings with the BIA, Roach prevented U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement from obtaining Roach’s travel documents for removal. This

interference extended his removal period and detention under 8 U.S.C. §

1231(a)(1)(C), which provides that the removal period and detention shall be

extended beyond ninety days if the alien “conspires or acts to prevent the alien’s

removal subject to an order of removal.” 

With liberal construction, Roach’s pro se appeal challenges the

constitutionality of his continued detention. We conclude that Roach failed to

meet his initial burden of proof in showing there is no significant likelihood of

removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701; see
No. 08-51248

3

also Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 543-44 (5th Cir. 2006). Further, the

magistrate judge did not err in finding that Roach’s repeated filings with the

BIA constituted acts to prevent his removal, thus extending his removal period

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.