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)

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