Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8058959/IMMIG-DC9-Habeus-Removal-Bond
Timestamp: 2015-03-01 16:45:11
Document Index: 438400420

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 237', '§ 1227', '§ 101', '§ 237', '§ 1227']

P. 1IMMIG DC9 Habeus Removal BondIMMIG DC9 Habeus Removal BondRatings: 4.0 (1)|Views: 75|Likes: 1Published by matt29nycMore info:Published by: matt29nyc on Nov 17, 2008Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/8058959/IMMIG-DC9-Habeus-Removal-Bond09/07/2012pdftextoriginal COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM
01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONPAGE -1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT SEATTLEVOLSAINT DOISSAINT,Petitioner,v.MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,Respondents.
____________________________________))))))))))
CASE NO. C08-0584-MJPREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONI. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSIONPetitioner Volsaint Doissaint, proceeding through counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention without bond for more thanthirty-four months by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Dkt. 4).Petitioner requests that the Court grant his immediate release or, alternatively, a prompt bondhearing before an Immigration Judge, arguing that his continued detention violates the UnitedStates Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Respondents have filed aReturn and Motion to Dismiss, arguing that petitioner is lawfully detained pending adjudicationof his Petition for Review pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Dkt. 12).
Case 2:08-cv-00584-MJP Document 20 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 14
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM
01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONPAGE -2Having carefully reviewed the entire record, I recommend that petitioner’s habeas petition(Dkt. 4) and cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16) be GRANTED, and respondents’motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12) be DENIED.II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYPetitioner is a native and citizen of Haiti who was paroled into the United States at Miami,Florida, on June 11, 1992, under Section 212(d)(5) of the INA. (Dkt. 15 at R5). Petitionerapplied for and was granted asylum on November 30, 1993. (Dkt. 15 at L61-64). Petitionersubsequently adjusted his status to that of lawful permanent resident as of June 1, 1995. (Dkt. 15at L93).On May 19, 2000, petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon,County of Multnomah, for the offense of Assault II in violation of Oregon Revised Statute163.175, and was sentenced to seventy months incarceration. (Dkt. 15 at L116-20).On September 12, 2000, ICE served petitioner with a Notice to Appear, charging him withbeing removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), for having beenconvicted of an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(F), relating to a crime of violence, and under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), for having been convictedof a crime of domestic violence. (Dkt. 15 at L104-05). On September 28, 2005, petitioner wasreleased from state custody and transferred directly into ICE custody. (Dkt. 15 at R291-92,L111). Petitioner has been detained without bond since that date.On January 17, 2006, petitioner appeared pro se for a merits hearing before an ImmigrationJudge (“IJ”). Following the hearing, the IJ denied petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholdingof removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and ordered him removed
Case 2:08-cv-00584-MJP Document 20 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 2 of 14
01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONPAGE -3to Haiti. (Dkt. 15 at L297-305). Petitioner, through counsel, appealed the IJ’s decision to theBoard of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), who affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appealon May 26, 2006. (Dkt. 15 at L306-310). Although petitioner had appealed the denial of hisapplications for cancellation of removal and for protection under the CAT, the BIA stated in afootnote that petitioner “does not appeal the denial of his application for cancellation of removalor his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We thus deem those issuesabandoned and need not address them here.” (Dkt. 15 at L293; L307, n1). Petitioner, throughcounsel, filed a Petition for Review of the BIA’s decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,along with a motion for stay of removal.
See Doissaint v. Mukasey
, No. 06-73218. Under NinthCircuit General Order 6.4(c)(1)(3), this caused a temporary stay of removal to automatically issue.
While his Petition for Review was pending, petitioner also filed a motion to reopen with theBIA. (Dkt. 15 at R655-71).On August 9, 2006, ICE served petitioner with a Notice to Alien of File Custody Review,informing him that ICE would be reviewing his custody status on or about August 24, 2006, andthat he could submit any documentation he wished to be reviewed in support of his release priorto that date. (Dkt. 15 at R337-38). Despite the fact that petitioner’s counsel had filed a Form G-28 Notice of Entry of Appearance, ICE failed to notify petitioner’s counsel of the file custodyreview, and petitioner submitted no evidence in support of his release. (Dkt. 16 at 5-6).On October 23, 2006, the BIA denied petitioner’s motion to reopen. (Dkt. 15 at L311-15). Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review of the BIA’s decision denying his motion to reopenwith the Ninth Circuit, which the Ninth Circuit consolidated with his direct appeal.
, No. 06-75390. Petitioner’s consolidated appeals remain pending before the Ninth
Case 2:08-cv-00584-MJP Document 20 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 3 of 14
Activity (2)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsConstance Fritt liked thisLoad more
More From This UserOption Handbook2matt29nycEffect of Departure while in removal proceedings Kurzbanmatt29nycIMMIG KURZBAN CASELAWmatt29nycImmig Judicial Review Caselaw Toobymatt29nycIMMIG KY Unreasonable Stopmatt29nycIMMIG KY Facilitate Defraudmatt29nycIMMIG Ca9 CIMT Review of BIA Precedentsmatt29nycIMMIG CA3 Garcia Statute of Limitationmatt29nycIMMIG Andrade Opp to RR Memomatt29nycImmig Andrade Govt Response 2 Estoppel Res Judicatamatt29nycImmig Andrade Govt Responsematt29nycAndrade Exhibit Bia Perez Contreras 20 615 92matt29nycAndrade Edny Habeasmatt29nycImmig 212 c Rulesmatt29nycImmig Ca9 Define Cimtmatt29nycIMMIG BIA NO ABSENTIA Removal if Not Paroled Detainedmatt29nycIMMIG Wording of Stat Fraud Nunc Delagadillomatt29nycImmig Nlda Non Sub Conv Listmatt29nycIMMIG PC Relief RI Effective Counselmatt29nycIMMIG Kestelboym v. Chertoff Defaultmatt29nycImmig Fl Vacatematt29nycIMMIG Kestelboym v. Chertoff Plntf Opp Reconsidermatt29nycIMMIG Kestelboym v. Chertoff Settlementmatt29nycIMMIG Kestelboym v. Chertoff Def Reconsidermatt29nyc