Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140226_0000286.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 00:06:57
Document Index: 697026306

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 1231', '§ 1231', '§ 1231', '§ 1231', '§ 1231', '§ 1231', '§ 1231', '§ 2241']

| Singh v. Hendricks
Singh v. Hendricks
SANDHU BALJINDER SINGH, Petitioner,v.ROY L. HENDRICKS, et al., Respondents.
1. On February 19, 2014, Sandhu Baljinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention since August 15, 2013, at Essex County Correctional Facility in New Jersey by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). He asserts that he entered the United States without inspection in June 1996; on December 17, 2003, an Immigration Judge ordered his removal in absentia; he has been detained by DHS since August 15, 2013. He argues that his prolonged detention without a hearing to determine whether his detention is necessary is not authorized by statute and violates his right to due process of law.
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition under § 2241 because Petitioner was detained within its jurisdiction in the custody of the DHS at the time he filed his Petition, see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998), and he asserts that his detention violates federal law and his constitutional rights. See Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 445-46 (3d Cir. 2005).
3. In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b), see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rules 1(b), this Court has screened the Petition for dismissal. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face."). For the reasons explained below, this Court will summarily dismiss the Petition because Singh has not alleged facts showing that there is "good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal [to India] in the reasonably foreseeable future, " as required by Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
4. As Singh does not assert that his removal proceeding was reopened or that his December 17, 2003, removal order is not otherwise final, it appears from the face of the Petition that Singh's order of removal is final.
5. Once an alien's order of removal is final, the Attorney General is required to remove him or her from the United States within a 90-day "removal period." See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) ("Except as otherwise provided in this section, when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the removal period').") 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Section § 1231(a)(2) requires DHS to detain aliens during this 90-day removal period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) ("During the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien"). This 90-day removal period begins on the latest of the following dates:
6. If DHS does not remove the alien during this 90-day removal period, then § 1231(a)(6) authorizes DHS to thereafter release the alien on bond or to continue to detain the alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) ("An alien ordered removed... may be detained beyond the removal period and, if released, shall be subject to the terms of supervision in paragraph (3).")
7. The Supreme Court held in Zadvydas that § 1231(a)(6) does not authorize the Attorney General to detain aliens indefinitely beyond the removal period, but "limits an alien's post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States." Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689. To guide habeas courts, the Supreme Court recognized six months as a presumptively reasonable period of post-removal-period detention. Id. at 701.
8. To state a claim under § 2241, the alien assert facts showing that he has been detained for more than six months and that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Specifically, the Court held:
After this 6-month period, once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. And for detention to remain reasonable, as the period of prior postremoval confinement grows, what counts as the "reasonably foreseeable future" conversely would have to shrink. This 6-month presumption, of course, does not mean that every alien not removed must be released after six months. To the contrary, an alien may ...