2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-24-2008 

# K ur t i shi v . C icchi P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4595

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " K ur t i shi v . C ic chi " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1397. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1397A L D - 145 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4595

___________ M U S H T E B A K U R T IS H I, A ppel l ant

v. E D M O N D C IC C H I, W a rd e n , M id d les e x C o u n tyJa il; C H R I ST O PH E R SH A N A H A N , N ew Y or k C i t yFi el d O ffi ce D i r e c t o r , D e p a r t m e n to f H o m e l a n d S e c u r i t y, Im m ig ra tio n a n d C u sto m s E n f o rc e m e n t; DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y; I M M I GR AT I ON & C US T OM S E NF OR CE M E NT

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 05169) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

February28, 2008 Bef or e : SLO V I TER , FI SH ER a nd H A RD I M A N , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________A l t ho ug h E dm on d C i cchi, w arden o f t he M i dd l esex C ou ntyJai l , w as nam ed as a 1 partyi n K ur t i s hi ’ s amended habea s pet i t i on, i tappea r s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our tdockett hat he di d notpart i ci pat e i n t he pr ocee di ngs befor e thatcour t . I n anyevent , forthe r eas ons e x p lain e d b e lo w , an yc laim s w ith re sp e c t to C icc h i’s d e ten tio n o f K u rtish i ar e m o o t. T h e f in a l h e a rin g in K u rtish i’s d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s a p p a re n tlyto o k p lac e in 2 N ew Y or k. 2 P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t M u sh teb a K u rtish i ap p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . A ppel l ees C hr i s t opherShanahan, D epart m entof H o m elan d S ec u ri ty , an d Im m igrati o n an d C u stom s E n fo rce m en t hav e m o v ed fo r a s um m aryaff

i r m ance of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derent er ed on N ovember29, 2007. For 1 the r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , w e w i l l gr antthe A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on t o t he ext entK ur t i s hi s eeks t o appea l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s chal l enge t o t he or derof r emoval for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. T o t he ext entK ur t i s hi s eeks t o appea l the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r ej ect i on o f h is p e tit io n f

o r re lief u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 , w e w ill d ism iss th e a p p e a l as m o o t. I n 1997, K ur t i s hi w as or der ed r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es t o M ace doni a af t er a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e d e n ie d h is a p p lic a tio n f o r a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f d e p o rt a tio n . K ur t i s hi fi l ed an uns ucce s s ful appea l t o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , as w el l as three subsequ ent unsuccessful m oti on s t o reope n h i s asy l um proceed i ng s. K urt i shi al so fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui t , w hi ch deni ed i ton February15, 2006. K ur t i s hi w as then t aken i nt o cus t odyby

23

the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yand I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cementand h e l d a tM i d d l e s e x C o u n t y J a i l i n N e w J e r s e y. W hi l e he w as i n cus t ody , K ur t i s hi fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus . A ft er fi l i ng thatpet i t i on, K ur t i s hi w as deport ed. A few hour s befor e thi s depor t at i on, K ur t i s hi f ile d a n e m e rg e n c ym o tio n f o r a te m p o ra ry re s tr a in in g o rd e r w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . A ft era t el econf

er ence , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed a t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or derenj oi ni ng K u rtish i’s re m o v a l b a se d o n th e e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s c re a ted b yK u rtish i’s e lev e n th hourappl i cat i on. A tt hatt i m e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notm ake a nyfi ndi ngs r egar di ng K ur t i s hi ’ s r i ghtt o r el i ef. A ppar ent l y , K ur t i s hi w as depor t ed dur i ng the t el econf er ence , befor e the or dergr ant i ng a t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or derw as ent er ed. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tm odi fi ed i t s or dert o s t at e thatK ur t i s hi s houl d be r eturned t o t he U ni t ed S tat es a n d h eld in cu stod yu n ti l fu rth er o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt . T h e D istri ct C o u rt al s o gr ant ed K ur t i s hi perm i s s i on t o fi l e an a m ended ha beas pet i t i on. Ku r t i s h i s u b s e q u e n t l yf i l e d a n a me n d e d h a b e a s p e t i t i o n c o n c e d i n g th a tth e RE AL I D A ctdi ves t ed fe der al di s tr i ctcour t s of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of deport at i on, butnonethel es s s eeki ng t o chal l enge hi s “cont i nued r es t r ai ntbyD H S- I C E ” under28 U . S. C . § 2241. K ur t i s hi al s o ar gued thathi s enfor ced de par tur e fr om the U ni t ed St at es w as u n law fu l “as the D H S -IC E co n ti n u ed the p roc ess o f re m o v ing h im ev en af ter a fede r al j udge had gr ant ed hi s r eques tfora t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or der . ” A ppel l ees fi l ed a r es pons e oppos i ng t he amended habe as pet i t i on.4

T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued an opi ni on and or derdeny i ng bot h t he or i gi nal and amended habea s pet i t i ons and vac at i ng i t s pr i ort empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or deras i m pr ovi dent l ygr ant ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned thati t s pr i ort empora r yr es t r ai ni ng o rde r ha d b ee n im p rov iden tl yg ran ted b ec au se itlack ed juri sd ict ion u n d er the R ea l I D A ct , Publ . L . 109- 13m 119 St at . 231, t o r evi ew the or derof r emoval thathad bee n ent er ed agai ns tpet i t i oner . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o obs erved thatthe U ni t ed St at es C our tof A p p e a ls f

o r t h e S e c o n d C ir c u it h a d a lr e a d yre v ie w e d a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

ro m K u rt is h i. H o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt w e n t o n to c o n c lu d e th a t itd id h a v e ju risd ictio n to e n ter tain K u rt ishi’s ch all en g e to th e leg ali tyo f h is de tention u n d er § 2 2 4 1 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt s t at ed thati thad j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthi s chal l enge e ven though K ur t i s hi had al r eadybeen d e p o rte d b e c a u se K u rtish i’s o rig in a l h a b e a s p e tit io n w a s f iled w h e n h e w a s s til l in cus t ody . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfur t herconcl uded the pet i t i on w as notm ootbeca us e the cour t ’ s pr i oror derdi r ect ed thatK ur t i s hi be r eturned t o t he U ni t ed St at es pendi ng the r es ol ut i on of hi s amended pet i t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen r ej ect ed K ur t i s hi ’ s chal l enge t o hi s depor t at i on on t he m er i t s beca us e K ur t i s hi had pr ovi ded no r at i onal e forhi s ar gum entthathi s fi ve- w eek d eten ti o n w as u n law fu l. T h e D istri ct C o u rtfu rth er rea so n ed that h is en fo rce d d ep arture w as l aw ful beca us e, i nt eral i a, D H S had no know l edge the TR O w as gr ant ed unt i l aft er the pl ane ha d l eftt he gat e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o expl ai ned thatbeca us e the TR O had now been va cat ed as i m pr ovi dent l ygr ant ed, i tcoul d no l ongers erve as a bas i s foranN o t r ans ferof K ur t i s hi ’ s habea s pet i t i on w as nece s s arygi ven thatthe Second 3 C irc u it h a d a lre a d yru led o n a p e tit io n f o r re v iew f

ro m K u rtish i. 5 arg u m en t th at K u rt ishi ha d b ee n u n law fu ll yd etaine d . M o reo v er, th e D istri ct C o u rt rejected K u rt ishi’s pe ti ti o n to the ex tent h e so u g h t t o relyo n 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (a), concl udi ng t hata fi ve- w eek de t ent i on w as pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e underZ advy das v. D avi s , 533 U . S. 678 ( 2001) . K ur t i s hi t i m el yappea l ed and, as not ed above , the A ppel l ees seek sum m aryaffirm ance o f t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order. K urt i shi has no tfi l ed a respon se t o the A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance . Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s t at ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , w e agr ee thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tw as w i t houtj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derK ur t i s hi ’ s chal l enge t o hi s or derof r emoval and w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t hi s par tof the D i s t r i ctcour t ’ s or der . See B onhom r etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 442, 445- 46 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( R eal I D A cteff ect i vel yl i m i t s “al l al i ens to o n e b it e o f th e a p p le w ith reg ard to ch all en g ing an o rde r of rem o v al”). 3 T o th e e x ten t K u rtish i se e k s to a p p e a l th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e jec tio n o f

h is c h a llen g e to th e leg a lityo f h is f iv e -w e e k d e ten tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 , w e w ill dis m i ss the ap peal as m oo t . R egardl ess of w hetheran A rt i cl e II I, § 2 case or contr ov ers y cont i nued t o exi s tdur i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs , K ur t i s hi m us ts how the s ubs i s t ence of a c as e orcontr over s yi n t hi s C our t . C hong v. D i s t r i ctD i r ect or , I . N . S. , 264 F . 3 d 3 7 8 , 3 8 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). K u rt ishi can n o t m ak e this sh o w ing . In v iew o f K u rt ishi’s depor t at i on, t her e ar e no r emai ni ng col l at er al cons equenc es thatm aybe r edr es s ed by6

s ucce s s on K ur t i s hi ’ s chal l enge unde r§ 2241 t o hi s “cont i nued r es t r ai ntbyD H S- I C E . ” S ee A b d ala v . Im m igrati o n an d N atura li za ti o n S erv ice, 48 8 F . 3 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 5 (9th C ir . 2007) ( pet i t i on compl ai ni ng of the l ength of det ent i on atan I N S faci l i t ym oot ed by pet i t i oner ’ s s ubs equentdeport at i on s i x w eeks l at er ) . Fur t her , t o t he ext entK ur t i s hi at t empt s t o pr emi s e a r eques tforr el i ef on the fa ctthathe w as al l egedl ydepor t ed af t ert he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed hi s r eques tfora t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or der , s uch a c l ai m i s m oot gi ven thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tvaca t ed the or deri n ques t i on as i m pr ovi dent l ygr ant ed. F o r th e se re a so n s, w e w ill g ra n t th e A p p e llee s’ m o tio n f o r su m m a rya f

f irm a n c e in part , and di s m i s s K ur t i s hi ’ s chal l enge unde r§ 2241 t o hi s det ent i on and deport at i on as m o o t.