Harrison v. Holder et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 9/24/2012. (KAM, )

FILED
2012 Sep-24 PM 02:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
ANDRE HARRISON,
Petitioner,
vs.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General;
JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of
Homeland Security; PHILLIP T. MILLER,
New Orleans Field Office Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
SCOTT HASSELL, Warden,
Etowah County Detention Center,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12-cv-112-SLB-TMP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case involves an immigration detainee who seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, contending that he is being held in ICE custody beyond the presumptively reasonable
removal period of six months prescribed in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150
L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001). The magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation on September 5,
2012, recommending that habeas relief be denied and the petition dismissed. To date, no objections
have been filed with respect to the report and recommendation.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo the report and recommendation and
other relevant materials in the court record, the court finds that the report is due to be and hereby is
ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court agrees with the magistrate judge
that petitioner has not shown that there is no “significant likelihood” that petitioner will be removed
in the “reasonably foreseeable future.” See Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir.

2002). Petitioner has been ordered removed to Jamaica, and that nation has cooperated in the past
with efforts to repatriate its citizens. The obstacle in this case is plaintiff’s own litigation efforts in
this court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Once that litigation comes to an end, there is
no reason to believe that Jamaica will fail to provide the necessary travel documents to remove
petitioner to that country. Stated another way, there remains a significant likelihood that petitioner
can be removed to Jamaica in the reasonably foreseeable future. That being the case, petitioner’s
continued detention awaiting removal does not violate his due process under Zadvydas. As the
Supreme Court stated in Zadvydas, “[A]n alien may be held in confinement until it has been
determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 2505, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001).
Under the circumstances presently existing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to
DENIED and DISMISSED. A separate order will enter.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the foregoing to the petitioner.
DONE, this 24th day of September, 2012.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE