UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FORSTER MOORE,

Petitioner, Case No. 09-11422

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT, 

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, Forster Moore, filed a pro se “Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint” on April 16,

2009, which the court has construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. Moore challenges his detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement. The government submitted a response on August 19, 2009. For the reasons set

forth below, the petition is denied.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Moore is a citizen and native of Ghana. He was admitted to this country as a visitor on a

B-2 non-immigrant visa on June 7, 2003, at Chicago, Illinois. Moore overstayed his visa, which

authorized him to stay until December 6, 2003. On February 6, 2004, he was served with a

Notice to Appear, notifying him that he was subject to removal and requiring him to appear for

removal proceedings before an immigration judge at Detroit, Michigan.

At a hearing, Moore admitted that (1) he is not a citizen or national of the United States:

(2) his is a native and citizen of Ghana; (3) he was admitted to the United States as a visitor with

5:09-cv-11422-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 09/01/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 93
-2-

authorization to stay until December 6, 2003; and (4) he remained in the United States beyond

December 6, 2003, without authorization. See Def.’s Ex. B. The immigration judge sustained

the charge of removability, but gave Moore the opportunity to pursue an application for asylum.

On July 7, 2005, the immigration judge denied Moore’s application for asylum and his

application for withholding of removal, primarily based upon Moore’s utter lack of credibility.

See Def.’s Ex. B (oral decision of immigration judge). The Board of Immigration Appeals

affirmed the immigration judge’s decision on February 9, 2007. Moore did not pursue any

further appeal.

On May 22, 2008, Moore was arrested and taken into custody by ICE Fugitive

Operations officers. Moore has refused to cooperate and comply with the removal order. On

May 23, 2008, he was served with a Form I-229(a), Warning for Failure to Depart, which

provides that it is a crime to “willfully fail[] or refuse[] to make timely application in good faith

for travel or other documents necessary to the alien’s departure.” Def.’s Ex. G. Moore refused to

sign an acknowledgment that he received the form. He was served with two more I-229(a)

forms, on August 21, 2008, and October 24, 2008, which he also refused to sign.

On October 28, 2008, he was served with a Notice of Failure to Comply Pursuant to 8

C.F.R. § 241.4(g), which informed him that due to his failure to cooperate in obtaining a travel

document, he would remain in custody until he demonstrated reasonable efforts to comply with

his order of removal. Def.’s Ex. J. Moore was served with another Notice of Failure to Comply

on January 28, 2009. Def.’s Ex. K. He was served with another I-229(a) and a Notice of Failure

to Comply on May 22, 2009, and May 23, 2009. Def.’s Ex. L. On July 30, 2009, Moore was

served with his fourth Notice of Failure to Comply. Def.’s Ex. M. Moore remains in detention

5:09-cv-11422-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 09/01/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 94
1

 Moore has not specifically claimed that the length of his detention is unreasonable. A

detention period of six months is presumptively reasonable, although a longer period may be

appropriate. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. In order to obtain habeas relief based upon the

length of his detention, Moore must show that there “is no significant likelihood of removal in

the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. Because his extended detention is the result of his own

failure to cooperate, Moore has not made this showing. See Olajide v. BICE, 402 F. Supp.2d

688, 689, 694 (E.D. Va. 2005) (“[F]or like the orphan who sought sympathy after murdering his

parents, petitioner cannot claim that his pre-removal detention is unreasonably long when he is

the cause of the delay in his removal.”); Pelich v. INS, 329 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We

. . . join the existing chorus of courts and hold that an alien cannot assert a viable constitutional

-3-

at the Wayne County Jail. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Moore challenges his detention, claiming that he is being detained “for no reason.” To

the contrary, Moore’s detention is not unlawful. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) (“During the removal

period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”). Aliens who are subject to removal are

detained pursuant to statute to assure “the alien’s presence at the moment of removal.” Zadvydas

v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001). Generally, the Attorney General has ninety days to

accomplish removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). However, that period may be extended:

The removal period shall be extended beyond a period of 90 days

and the alien may remain in detention during such extended period

if the alien fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith

for travel or other documents necessary to the alien’s departure or

conspires or acts to prevent the alien’s removal subject to an order

of removal.

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). 

Moore is subject to a final order of removal, with which he has failed to cooperate. He

has failed to assist in obtaining the necessary travel documents that are required for his removal. 

Accordingly, his removal period has been extended pursuant to § 1231(a)(1)(C). His detention is

not, therefore, unlawful.1

 

5:09-cv-11422-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 09/01/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 95
claim when his indefinite detention is due to his failure to cooperate with the INS's efforts to

remove him.”).

-4-

Moore also claims that “I didn’t know I’m American by birth” and otherwise attempts to

challenge the removal order itself. This court lacks jurisdiction to review an order of removal.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Accordingly, the court will not consider Moore’s claims in this

regard.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Moore’s April 16, 2009 petition is DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: September 1, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of

record on this date, September 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cv-11422-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 09/01/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 96