Hamani v. Beckhelm et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION. The Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus AS MOOT. (Doc. No. 1.) This case is now CLOSED. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/15/2017.(acc) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEYNI HAMANI,

Case No.: 17-CV-0212-AJB-NLS
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.
KELLEY A. BECKHELM, in his official
capacity, Field Office Director, ICE ERO,
San Diego; KENNETH C. SMITH;
Assistant Field Office Director, San Diego
ICE ERO Field Office; JOHN F. KELLY,
in his Official Capacity, Secretary of
DHS; DANA J. BOENTE, in her Official
Capacity, Acting U.S. Attorney General,

15
16
17
18
19
20

(Doc. No. 1)

Respondents.

21
22

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Seyni Hamani’s (“Petitioner”) petition for

23

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) On July 6, 2017,

24

Respondents filed a return, informing the Court that Petitioner was scheduled to depart the

25

United States on July 11, 2017. (Doc. No. 3 at 1.) On July 14, 2017, the United States filed

26

a status report, verifying that Petitioner had in fact been removed. (Doc. Nos. 4, 4-1.)

27

Despite being given until August 7, 2017, to file a traverse, Petitioner has not otherwise

28

responded. (See Doc. No. 2 at 1.) After a thorough review of the papers and applicable law,
1
17-CV-0212-AJB-NLS

1

the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus AS MOOT.

2

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mali. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 7.) He converted to lawful

3

permanent resident status in 2004, which was subsequently revoked in 2010 based upon a

4

misdemeanor conviction. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 14.) Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings and

5

ultimately ordered removed on September 2, 2010. (Id. ¶ 14.) Petitioner, however, was not

6

removed and was thus released on March 16, 2011. (Id. ¶ 15.) He remained out of custody

7

without issue until June 2016, when ICE officers detained him upon traveling to San Diego,

8

California. (Id. ¶ 16.)

9

On June 15, 2016, ICE issued a notice of revocation of release, asserting Petitioner

10

“failed to assist ‘in obtaining a Travel Document from his country of Mali.’” (Id.) Petitioner

11

has been in ICE custody since. (Id. ¶ 17.) Petitioner asserts that his detention is based on

12

“patently false bases” in violation of his due process rights. (Id.) For example, Petitioner

13

contends that ICE misrepresented that Petitioner did not attempt to obtain his travel

14

documents from the Mali embassy, that Petitioner has missed scheduled interviews, or that

15

he is not a citizen of Mali. (Id. ¶¶ 16–18.) Petitioner asserts “ICE has been unable to remove

16

[him] from the United States,” and Petitioner believes “his removal is not significantly

17

likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.” (Id. ¶¶ 21, 28.)

18

“Deportation from the United States after filing a habeas petition” will moot a

19

petitioner’s claim unless there is “some remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may be

20

redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063–64 (9th Cir.

21

2007) (citations omitted). If “the habeas petition[] raised claims that were fully resolved by

22

release from custody,” the petition is moot. Id. at 1065. Collateral consequences

23

notwithstanding deportation after the filing of the petition have been found to exist where,

24

for example, a petitioner challenged an aggravated felony conviction, which would bar him

25

from reentering the country for twenty years. Zegarra-Gomez v. INS, 314 F.3d 1124, 1127

26

(9th Cir. 2003). In contrast, petitions were found moot and not saved by the collateral

27

consequences doctrine where, for example, a petitioner requested only a stay of deportation

28

and was later deported, Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 995 (9th Cir.1999), and a petitioner was
2
17-CV-0212-AJB-NLS

1

released after challenging the legality of his extended detention, Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d

2

1253, 1256–57 (10th Cir. 2002).

3

Here, Petitioner challenges the legality of his unreasonably long detention.

4

Specifically, Petitioner cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.

5

678, 689 (2001), for the proposition that “8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) does not allow ICE to detain

6

a noncitizen indefinitely while attempting to carry ou[t] removal.” (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 25.)

7

Petitioner contends he is being illegally detained given that his detention exceeded six

8

months and “he is not a risk of flight, danger to the community, nor is there a reasonable

9

likelihood ICE will obtain travel documents for him for Mali.” (Id. ¶ 18; see id. ¶ 28.)

10

Based on these allegations, the Court construes the petition as challenging the

11

legality of Petitioner’s continued detention. Because Petitioner has since been released

12

from custody by virtue of having been removed to Mali, the Petition is moot. Abdala, 488

13

F.3d at 1064; Riley, 310 F.3d at 1256–57; see Adem v. Kane, No. CIV-14-2472-PHX-GMS

14

(MHB), 2014 WL 12614446, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 22, 2014) (recommending that § 2241

15

petition be dismissed as moot when petitioner asserting “he is entitled to supervised release

16

from custody because . . . there is no prospect that his removal will be effected in the

17

reasonably foreseeable future” was released from custody), adopted, 2015 WL 12838143

18

(D. Ariz. Jan. 16, 2015).

19
20

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus
AS MOOT. (Doc. No. 1.) This case is now CLOSED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: August 15, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-0212-AJB-NLS