Donzo v. Lynch et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/27/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 1/28/16)

Download PDF
FILED U.S. DISTRICTCOURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlnt9TRICT OF MARYLAND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IOlb JAN28 A B: 58 SOl/them D;l'is;oll CLERK'S OFFIC:: AT GREEHB::~l * BANGALE DONZO, * Petitioner, * C'lse No.: GJH-I5-3I04 v. * LORETTA LYNCH, et "I., * Respondents. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM * * * * * * OPINION On October 13.2015. Pctitioner Bangale Donzo tiled a pro se Petition !tl!' Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.c. * 2241 (2012). ECF No. I. Donzo was in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforeement ("ICE") and was detained at the Worcester County Detention Center in Snowhill. Maryland at the time he tiled this Petition. ECF NO.1 at 2. On January 5, 2016, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition as moot. 1 For the reasons stated herein. Respondents' Motion to Dismiss is granted. I. BACKGROUND Donzo is a native and citizen of Liberia. ECF NO.1 at 2. On February 28. 2013. an immigration judge ordered Donzo removed to Liberia. !d at 4. ICE took Donza into custody and placed him in immigration detention on March 10. 2015. Id. He asserts that his post-removalorder detention is not statutorily authorized by 8 U.S.c. * 1226(c) and violates his constitutional rights. See Zad\J'das \'. Dal';s. 533 U.S. 678. 689. 121 S. Ct. 2491 (200 I) (holding that postI ECF Nos. 7-8. Notice of Respondents' dispositive motion was sent by U.S. Mail to Donzo at the address he provided to the Clerk. ECF NO.9. The mail was returned to the Clerk bv the U.S. Postal Service marked "Retum to Sender" and "Unable to Forward:' A handwritten notation on the retur~ed envelope reads ..)s not here:" ECF No. 10. removal-order detention under 8 U.S.C. * 1231(a)(6) does not authorize the Attorney General to detain an alien indefinitely beyond the removal period, but limits an alien's post-removal-order detention to a period reasonably necessary to effectuate removal from the United Statcs). Donzo asserts he has been in detention for longer than six months and is unlikely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. ECF No. I at 7. Respondents seek dismissal of the Petition arguing it has been rendered moot by Donzo's removal from the United States on December 29. 2015. pursuant to the final order or rcmoval. See ECF NO.8-I. II. DISCUSSION Upon completion of removal proceedings and entry orthe final removal order. the Attorney General is directed to remove the alien from the United Statcs within ninety days. See 8 U.S.C. S 1231(a)(I)(A). The purpose of detaining a deportable alien is to insure his presence at the moment of removal. lac/ryc/as. 533 U.S. at 699. The Suprcme Court held in lac/IJ'c/as that post-removal-order detention under 8 U.S.C. * 1231(a)(6) is implicitly limited to a period reasonably necessary to bring about the alien's removal trom the United States and does not permit indefinite detention. Id. at 689. Alier this period: [OJnce the alien provides good rcason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. the Government must respond with cvidence suflicient to rebut that showing. And for detention to remain reasonable. as the period of prior post-removal confinement grows, what counts as the "reasonably foreseeable future" conversely would have to shrink. This 6-month presumption. of course. does not mean that cvery alien not removed must be released alier six months. To the contrary. an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Id at 701. Donzo's petition requests release trom confinement on the grounds that his continucd 2 post-removal-order detention violates the standards set by Zadvydas. Petitioner's release from ICE custody and his removal from the United States render this action moot as there is no habeas relieffor the Court to grant. See Soliman v. Uniled Slales, 296 FJd 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002); Pieron-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773,775-76 (9th Cir. 1991). III, CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief is DISMISSED as moot. A separate Order follows. A;t- Dated: January 2 7,2016 "GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?