Adan v. Sessions et al
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Petitioner Maxamed Adan's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal 4 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 12/4/17. (GRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Civil File No. 17-5328 (MJD/BRT)
SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Kimberly K. Hunter and John R. Bruning, Kim Hunter Law, PLLC, Counsel for
Craig R. Baune, Ana H. Voss, and Ann M. Bildtsen, United States Attorney’s
Office, Counsel for Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Maxamed Adan’s Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal. [Docket No. 4]
The Court heard oral argument on December 4, 2017. Because this Court is
without jurisdiction, Adan’s motion must be denied.
Petitioner Maxamed Adan is a citizen of Somalia. (Pet. Ex. I, IJ Decision at
1.) On March 1, 1998, Adan entered the United States without documentation by
crossing the border from Mexico with the help of a paid smuggler of
undocumented persons. (Id.; O’Denius Decl. ¶ 5; IJ Decision at 1.)
Adan applied for asylum in 1998, based upon his clan membership. (IJ
Decision at 2, 8.) An immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Adan removed on July 30,
1998. (Id. at 1, 15.) The IJ opined that Adan had not been persecuted “on
account of” his clan affiliation or political activity but that he had been a victim
of civil strife. (IJ Decision at 13.)
On October 25, 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
summarily affirmed that decision. (Pet. Ex. I, BIA Decision.)
Adan regularly reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) under an order of supervision. (Pet. Ex. H, Adan Decl. ¶ 6.) On March
19, 2017, Adan went to the Canadian border to request asylum because he feared
being removed to Somalia, was returned to the U.S., and given a ride back to
Grand Forks by U.S. border patrol officers. (Id. ¶ 12.) Adan avers that a U.S.
border patrol officer told him that “no one is going to deport you.” (Id. ¶ 13.)
In September 2017, Adan appeared for a regular ICE check in and was
taken into custody. (Adan Decl. ¶ 6; O’Denius Decl., Exs. E-F.) On September
28, ICE transferred Adan to a facility in Iowa. (O’Denius Decl. ¶ 15.) On
November 28, ICE moved Adan to custody in Louisiana for removal to Somalia.
(Id. ¶ 19.) He is expected to be removed on December 7, 2017. (Id.)
On November 24, 2017, Adan filed a motion to reopen his case before the
BIA. (Pet. Ex. D, Hunter Decl. ¶ 2; Pet. Ex. F, Motion to Reopen; Pet. Ex. G, I-589
Application.) Also on that date, Adan filed a motion to stay his removal. (Pet.
Ex. D, Hunter Decl. ¶ 2; Pet. Ex. J, Motion for Stay of Removal.) Neither motion
has yet been ruled on. (Pet. Ex. D, Hunter Decl. ¶ 3.) On November 30, ICE
denied a request for an administrative stay. (Id. ¶ 4.)
On December 1, 2017, Adan filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in
this Court. [Docket No. 1] Respondents are Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III,
Attorney General; Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security; Thomas Homan, Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Scott Baniecke, Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Brian Acuna, Director, New Orleans Field Office, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement.
Adan claims that, if he is removed to Somalia, he faces a significant risk of
persecution and torture, particularly at the hands of Al-Shabaab. He claims that
Al-Shabaab was not formed until 2006, so he asserts that their presence
constitutes changed country conditions. He further asserts that, because he has
spent approximately 20 years in the United States, he risks persecution or torture
as a perceived apostate, a perceived Westernized infidel and as a perceived spy.
Adan claims that the BIA’s failure to rule on his motion to reopen and to
stay abrogates his right to demonstrate his statutory entitlement to protection
from removal based on changed circumstances. He claims that failure to stay the
removal will deprive him of due process and violate U.S. law.
The Court cannot reach the merits of Adan’s request for injunctive relief
because the Court concludes that it is without jurisdiction over this case.
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other
provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241
of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361
and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any
cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision
or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings,
adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
“A claim that is ‘connected directly and immediately’ to a decision to
execute a removal order arises from that decision.” Silva v. United States, 866
F.3d 938, 940 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “The statute  makes no
distinction between discretionary and nondiscretionary decisions. So long as the
claim arises from a decision to execute a removal order, there is no jurisdiction.”
In Silva, the Eighth Circuit noted that, in Jama v. Immigration &
Naturalization Service, 329 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2003), aff’d, 543 U.S. 335 (2005), the
court had “essentially carved out an exception to § 1252(g) for a habeas claim
raising a pure question of law, in part due to concerns that a contrary rule would
give rise to substantial constitutional questions.” Silva, 866 F.3d at 941.
Here, Adan is subject to a final order of removal. He requests that this
Court stay execution of that removal order while his motion to reopen and to
stay are decided by the BIA because failure to do so would violate the U.S.
Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). The Court concludes that Adan is clearly challenging
ICE’s decision to execute a removal order. His request falls squarely under §
1252(g). This Court is without jurisdiction to entertain his request for relief.
This matter does not present “a habeas claim raising a pure question of
law.” Silva, 866 F.3d at 941. Rather, Adan’s motion rests on fact-based
arguments regarding whether country conditions have materially changed in
Somalia and whether he has received due process with respect to the handling of
his agency proceedings.
Moreover, the Eighth Circuit has held that the REAL ID Act process that
applies to Adan’s motion to reopen and motion to stay is an adequate process
under the Suspension Clause:
This court may review all constitutional claims and questions of law
in the removal order, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Congress has created
a remedy as broad in scope as a habeas petition. It is an adequate
and effective substitute to test the legality of a person’s detention.
See Swain, 430 U.S. at 381–82, 97 S. Ct. 1224; see also INS v. St. Cyr,
533 U.S. 289, 314 n. 38, 121 S. Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (“As to
the question of timing and congruent means of review, we note that
Congress could, without raising any constitutional questions,
provide an adequate substitute [to replace habeas proceedings for
aliens resisting a removal order] through the courts of appeals.”).
Mohamed v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir. 2007). “For the writ of habeas
corpus, or its substitute, to function as an effective and proper remedy , the
court that conducts the habeas proceeding must have the means to correct errors
that occurred during the [previous] proceedings.” Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.
723, 786 (2008). Here, after a removal order is final and enforceable, a petitioner
may file a motion to reopen before the IJ or BIA if circumstances have changed.
There are no time or numerical limits on motions seeking to reopen based on
asylum and materially changed country conditions in the country to which the
petitioner will be removed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Here, Adan was able
to, through his attorney, file a motion to reopen, which is currently pending
before the BIA, along with his motion for a stay.
This Court is bound by the precedent of the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, not the opinions of out-of-circuit district courts. However, the Court
points out that the cases relied upon by Adan are inapposite. In Devitri v.
Cronen, No. CV 17-11842-PBS, 2017 WL 5707528 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2017), and
Hamama v. Adducci, 258 F. Supp. 3d 828, 830 (E.D. Mich. 2017), the courts issued
stays in order to allow the petitioners to file motions to reopen based on changed
country conditions, something that Adan has already accomplished in this case.
Additionally, in Devitri, the court did find that “the Immigration Court’s
procedures typically are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to
habeas corpus relief consistent with the Suspension Clause.” Id. at *7. The
court’s concern regarding the adequacy of the BIA’s procedures was with regard
to petitioners who were not in physical custody. Id. Here, Adan is in the
physical custody of ICE and is represented by a skilled attorney.
Additionally, any appeal of the BIA’s decision on the initial removal order
or the motion to reopen is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate
Court of Appeals. See Tostado v. Carlson, 481 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2007);
Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2153-54 (2015).
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
Petitioner Maxamed Adan’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Stay of Removal [Docket No. 4] is DENIED.
Dated: December 4, 2017
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
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?