MARWAN v. GREEN
OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 2/23/17. (DD, ) N/M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 16-9344 (KM)
KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.
Until February 9, 2017, the petitioner, Yahaya Marwan, was an immigration detainee.
Mr. Marwan is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. The petition challenges his immigration detention. For the following reasons, the habeas
petition will be denied as moot.
Mr. Marwan is a native and citizen of Ghana. He entered the United States in August,
2015. In August, 2015, Mr. Marwan was placed into immigration detention. In March, 2016, an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Mr. Marwan removed from the United States. Mr. Marwan
waived his right to appeal that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals “(BIA”).
Mr. Marwan filed this federal habeas petition in December, 2016. On February 22, 2017,
respondent filed a letter in response to Mr. Marwan’s habeas petition. The government asserts in
that letter that the habeas petition should now be denied as moot because Mr. Marwan was
removed from the United States on February 9, 2017.
As a general matter, in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the United States
Supreme Court held that
1231 (a)(6)’ “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a
period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States. It does
not permit indefinite detention.” 533 U.S. at 689. To state a habeas claim under
§ 2241, the
petitioner must provide facts showing good reason to believe that there is no reasonable
likelihood of his actual removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at
Mr. Marwan is no longer in immigration detention as he was removed from the United
States on February 9, 2017. The government has provided documentation to support its claim
that Mr. Marwan was removed by attaching a copy of the ICE-205 form. (See Dkt. No. 5-1 at
p.2-3) Thus, Mr. Marwan has received the relief he seeks in his habeas petition: cessation of
immigration detention. Because he has been removed from the United States, there is no
likelihood that he will be placed in immigration detention again. Accordingly, his habeas petition
seeking his release from immigration detention is moot as he “has achieved the result he sought
in his habeas petition and his change in circumstances has ‘forestalled any occasion for
meaningful relief.” ?‘/unes v. Decker, 480 F. App’x 173, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Artway v.
Atty Gen., 81 F.3d 1235, 1246 (3d Cir. 1996)) (other citation omitted); see also Lindaastuty v.
‘Section 123 1(a)(6) states as follows:
An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible under Section 1182
of this title, removable under section 1227(a)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2), or
1227(a)(4) of this title who has been determined by the Attorney
General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with
the order of removal, may be detained beyond the removal period,
and if released, shall be subject to the terms of supervision in
Attorney General of United States, 186 F. App’x 294, 296 (3d Cir. 2006) (habeas petition
challenging immigration detention is moot due to deportation from the United States); T/andra v.
Ashcroft, 110 F. App’x 290 (3d Cir. 2004) (finding appeal from denial of habeas petition that
challenged immigration custody while petition for review was pending moot in light of
petitioner’s removal from the United States); Pinoth v. Holder, No. 14-1803, 2015 WL 2015 WL
404489, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2015) (denying habeas petition that raised Zadvydas claim as
moot where petitioner was removed from the United States); Nguyen v. Holder, No. 13-0838,
2013 WL 5728671, at *l..2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2013) (same).
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas petition will be denied as moot. An appropriate
order will be entered.
DATED: February 23, 2017
United States District Judge
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?