Ahmed v. Holder et al

Filing 11

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP---DECISION AND ORDER denying the petition and dismissing the case. This dismissal is without prejudice to file another petition should it subsequently appear that removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. Leave to appeal as a poor person is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of respondent and to close this case. Signed by Hon. John T. Curtin on 6/5/2013. (JEC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IBRAHIM ABDIRAHMAN SHEIKH AHMED,
Petitioner,
-v-

13-CV-25-JTC

ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General
of the United States;
MICHAEL PHILIPS, Field Office Director for
Detention and Removal, Buffalo Field Office,
Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
TODD TRYON, Facility Director, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility,
Respondents.

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Ibrahim Abdirahman Sheikh Ahmed, an alien under a final order of
removal from the United States, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from detention in the custody of the United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(collectively, “DHS”), pending the execution of a final immigration order of removal issued
against him. Item 1. As directed by the court’s order entered February 28, 2013 (Item 6),
respondent1 has submitted an answer and return (Item 8), along with an accompanying

1

The only proper respondent in this proceeding is Todd Tryon, Assistant Field Office Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Buffalo, New York Office, and Director of the Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility, as he is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also
section 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the
person detained.”); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004).

memorandum of law (Item 9), and petitioner has submitted a response in reply (Item 10).
For the reasons that follow, the petition is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Somalia, entered the United States on or about
February 2, 2000 and was granted lawful permanent residence status on November 8,
2002. See Item 8-1 (Payan Decl.), ¶¶ 5-6; see also Item 1, ¶ 11. Petitioner has the
following criminal history:
On or about April 27, 2007, petitioner was convicted in the Davidson County
Criminal Court in Nashville, Tennessee, of Evading Arrest by Motor Vehicle,
in violation of § 39-16-603 of the Tennessee Code and was sentenced to a
term of incarceration of two years;
On or about February 7, 2008, petitioner was convicted in the Davidson
County Criminal Court in Nashville, Tennessee, of Aggravated Assault Deadly Weapon - Intentional, in violation of § 39-13-102 of the Tennessee
Code and was sentenced to a term of incarceration of six years.
See Payan Decl., ¶ 7.
On April 27, 2012, petitioner was encountered by DHS officers at the Lewiston
Bridge, Lewiston, New York, after he was refused entry into Canada. See Payan Decl.,
¶ 8. He was detained in DHS custody and removal proceedings were commenced by a
Notice to Appear (“NTA”) served April 27, 2012, which charged petitioner with being subject
to removal from the United States pursuant to § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), as an alien who has been convicted of
two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising from a single scheme of misconduct, and
pursuant to INA § 237 (a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien convicted of
an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Id. at
2

¶ 8; see also Item 8-2 (Exh. A), pp. 10-12.
On June 5, 2012, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered petitioner’s removal from the
United States to Somalia. Payan Decl., ¶ 9; Exh. A, p. 8. Petitioner did not appeal the IJ’s
decision. Id.
On June 8, 2012, DHS sent a presentation packet to the DHS Headquarters Travel
Document Unit (”HQTDU”) requesting that a travel document be issued for petitioner’s
removal. Payan Decl., ¶ 10; Exh. A, p. 18. According to DHS records, DHS received a
valid travel document for petitioner’s removal to Somalia on July 5, 2012. The document
expires on August 13, 2013. Payan Decl., ¶ 12. DHS records indicate that the United
States Department of State (“DOS”) advised DHS to delay removals to Somalia until the
end of 2012 due to the political situation in Somalia. Id., ¶ 13.
On August 28, 2012, petitioner was notified that, upon review of his custody status
and based on the totality of information available, DHS had determined that he would be
a threat to the community and a flight risk if released, and detention would be continued
pending removal. Payan Decl., ¶ 17; Exh. A, pp.5-6. On December 5, 2012, a panel was
convened at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility to conduct a further review of
petitioner’s custody status, including an in-person interview. Payan Decl., ¶ 18. Following
completion of the file review and interview, petitioner was notified on December 10, 2012,
that DHS had determined to continue his detention in DHS custody. Id., ¶ 19; Exh. A, p.
3. An additional review of petitioner’s custody status was conducted in March 2013, and
DHS determined that petitioner’s detention would continue. Id., ¶ 20.
DHS records indicate that representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility have been in regular contact with DHS
3

HQTDU regarding petitioner’s removal to Somalia. See Payan Decl., ¶ 16. The DOS
website reports that in January 2013, the United States officially recognized the new
Somali federal government. Id., ¶ 14 (citing Department of State website http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1023.html). File notes indicate that travel
arrangements are being made for a charter flight to Somalia “on a date certain in the near
future, ‘budget permitting,’” but the precise details can neither be publicly disclosed nor
disclosed to petitioner for security reasons. Id., ¶ 16.
Petitioner filed this action on January 9, 2013, seeking habeas corpus relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the ground that his continued detention in post-removalorder custody is unlawful since it has exceeded the presumptively reasonable six-month
period established under the due process standards set forth by the United States
Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Upon full consideration of the
matters set forth in the submissions on file, and for the reasons that follow, the petition is
denied.

DISCUSSION
Petitioner challenges his continued detention by way of habeas corpus review under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, which “authorizes a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus
whenever a petitioner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.’ ” Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3)); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687 (petition under § 2241 is the basic
method for statutory and constitutional challenges to detention following order of removal).
Matters pertaining to the detention of aliens pending the completion of immigration
4

removal proceedings, and pending removal following the entry of a final order of removal,
are governed by two separate provisions of the INA – respectively, INA § 236, which
authorizes the arrest and detention of an alien on warrant pending a decision on whether
the alien is to be removed from the United States, and INA § 241, which authorizes the
detention of aliens after the issuance of a final removal order. In this case, petitioner’s
detention at the time he filed his habeas petition was pursuant to INA § 241(a), which
requires the Attorney General to accomplish an alien’s removal from the United States
within a period of ninety days (the “removal period”), commencing on the latest of the
following dates:
(I) The date the order of removal becomes administratively
final;
(ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court
orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of the court’s
final order; or
(iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an
immigration process), the date the alien is released from
detention or confinement.
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B).
Detention during the ninety-day removal period is mandatory. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(2) (“During the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”).
The statute also authorizes the Attorney General to continue detention of criminal aliens
– i.e., aliens ordered removed due to conviction of a crime (like petitioner here) – beyond
the expiration of the ninety-day removal period if it is determined that the alien “is a risk to
the community or unlikely to comply with the order of removal ….” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).2

2

INA § 241(a)(6) provides in full as follows:

An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title, removable

5

In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court was presented with the challenge of reconciling
this apparent authorization of indefinite detention with the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition
against depriving a person of their liberty without due process. The Court determined that
INA § 241(a) authorizes detention after entry of an administratively final order of
deportation or removal for a period that is “reasonably necessary” to accomplish the alien’s
removal from the United States. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699-700. Recognizing the
practical necessity of setting a “presumptively reasonable” time within which to secure
removal, the court adopted a period of six months “for the sake of uniform administration
in the federal courts ….” Id. at 701.
After this 6-month period, once the alien provides good reason to believe that
there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that
showing. And for detention to remain reasonable, as the period of prior
postremoval confinement grows, what counts as the “reasonably foreseeable
future” conversely would have to shrink. This 6-month presumption, of
course, does not mean that every alien not removed must be released after
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.
To comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zadvydas, the Attorney General has
promulgated regulations providing for review of the custody status of aliens who have been
detained for more than six months after the issuance of a final order of removal. Under
these regulations, a detainee who has been in post-removal-order custody for more than

under section 1227(a)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2),or 1227(a)(4) of this title or 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 paragraph (3).
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).

6

six months may submit a written request for release to DHS Headquarters Post-order
Detention Unit (“HQPDU”) setting forth “the basis for the alien’s belief that there is no
significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future to
the country to which the alien was ordered removed and there is no third country willing to
accept the alien.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(d)(1). The written request must include “information
sufficient to establish his or her compliance with the obligation to effect his or her removal
and to cooperate in the process of obtaining necessary travel documents.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.13(d)(2).
In reviewing the request for release, the agency is required to consider “all the facts
of the case including, but not limited to,” the following:
[T]he history of the alien's efforts to comply with the order of removal, the
history of the Service's efforts to remove aliens to the country in question or
to third countries, including the ongoing nature of the Service's efforts to
remove this alien and the alien's assistance with those efforts, the
reasonably foreseeable results of those efforts, and the views of the
Department of State regarding the prospects for removal of aliens to the
country or countries in question. Where the Service is continuing its efforts
to remove the alien, there is no presumptive period of time within which the
alien's removal must be accomplished, but the prospects for the timeliness
of removal must be reasonable under the circumstances.
8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f).
If the agency finds that the alien has met the burden of demonstrating good reason
to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,
and that there are no special circumstances justifying continued detention, then it must
order the detainee released. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(g)(1). However, the agency may impose
certain conditions of release on the alien, such as requiring a bond, attendance in a
rehabilitative program, or submission to a medical or psychiatric examination. See 8
7

C.F.R. §§ 241.5(b), 241.13(h)(1); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695 (“[W]e nowhere deny
the right of Congress to remove aliens, to subject them to supervision with conditions when
released from detention, or to incarcerate them where appropriate for violations of those
conditions.”).
As set forth above, in this case petitioner was received into DHS custody on April
27, 2012. See Payan Decl., ¶ 8. He was ordered removed from the United States to
Somalia in an order dated June 5, 2012, an order he did not appeal. Id., ¶ 9; Exh. A, pp.
8-9, 18. As an alien under a final order of removal, petitioner’s detention was mandatory
for the ninety-day removal period pursuant to INA § 241(a). Thereafter, upon determining
that petitioner posed a significant threat to the safety and security of the community, DHS
was authorized under INA § 241(a)(6) to continue the detention beyond the expiration of
the ninety-day period for “a period reasonably necessary to secure removal.” Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 699-700.
Under Zadvydas, the first six months of detention following a final removal order are
“presumptively reasonable.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Once the six-month period has
passed, the burden shifts to the alien detainee to “provide[ ] good reason to believe that
there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. Only
if the alien makes this showing does the burden shift back to the government, which “must
respond with evidence sufficient to rebut” the alien's showing that there is no significant
likelihood that he or she will be deported in the reasonably foreseeable future. Id.; see also
Wang, 320 F.3d at 146 (“reasonable foreseeability” test of Zadvydas “articulates the outer
bounds of the Government's ability to detain aliens (other than those serving criminal

8

sentences) without jeopardizing their due process rights.”).
Upon review of the submissions on the present petition, the court finds that
petitioner has failed to sustain his initial burden under Zadvydas. The petition sets forth
no factual basis to substantiate petitioner’s belief that there is no significant likelihood he
can be removed to Somalia in the reasonably foreseeable future. There are no institutional
barriers to petitioner’s removal to his native country and Somalia has issued a valid travel
document that expires in August 2013. The available records reflect that there has been
regular and continuing communications between ICE representatives at the Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility and DHS HQTDU. Payan Decl., ¶ 15. In fact, petitioner’s removal
seems imminent as arrangements are being made for a charter flight on a date certain in
the near future, although the precise details cannot be disclosed. Id., ¶ 16.3 Additionally,
the available evidence shows that in recent years, DHS has successfully repatriated a
number of aliens to Somalia. See id. at ¶ 21.4 In petitioner’s case, the delay appears to
result, at least in part, from the political situation in Somalia, the DOS instruction to delay
removals to Somalia until the end of 2012, and budgetary concerns. Id., ¶¶ 11, 16-19.
These circumstances provide a reasonable basis for DHS’s expectation that petitioner’s
release from custody and his repatriation to Somalia will take place in the reasonably
foreseeable future.
Significantly, petitioner has provided no evidence to contradict DHS’s expectation
3

Respondents have stated that counsel will provide the court with updated information when the
travel arrangements are completed. Item 9, p. 3, n. 2.
4

For example, DHS statistical reports show that in fiscal year (“FY”) 2009, a total of 32 aliens
were repatriated to Somalia; in FY 2010, 41 aliens were repatriated to Somalia; and in FY 2011, 28 aliens
were repatriated to Somalia. Item 8-1, ¶ 21 (citing DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2011, Table
41: http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2011-3).

9

that his removal will be accomplished in the reasonably foreseeable future. Instead,
petitioner relies on the fact that his detention has exceeded the presumptively reasonable
six-month period established in Zadvydas. Several cases decided within this district have
found the habeas petitioner’s assertion as to the unforeseeability of removal, supported
only by the mere passage of time, insufficient to meet the petitioner’s burden to
demonstrate no significant likelihood of removal under the Supreme Court’s holding in
Zadvydas. See, e.g., Khaleque v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2009 WL 81318, at *4
(W.D.N.Y. January 9, 2009) (petitioner failed to meet initial burden where the only evidence
relied upon was the fact that the Consulate had not responded positively to the request for
a travel document); Kassama v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 553 F.Supp.2d 301, 306-07
(W.D.N.Y. 2008) (petitioner failed to meet initial burden where there was no evidentiary
proof in admissible form to suggest that travel documents would not be issued); Haidara
v. Mule, 2008 WL 2483281, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. June 17, 2008) (petitioner failed to meet initial
burden where he “merely ma[de] the general assertion that he will not be returned to [his
country] in the foreseeable future.”); Roberts v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs
Enforcement, 2007 WL 781925, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. March 13, 2007) (petitioner who did not
present evidence that his country would not provide travel documents did not meet initial
burden of proof); Singh v. Holmes, 2004 WL 2280366, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. October 8, 2004)
(petitioner who “failed to submit anything demonstrating that there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future” did not meet initial burden of
proof); see also Juma v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 2191247, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009)
(vague, conclusory and general claims that removal is not foreseeable, and that Embassy

10

will not issue travel document in foreseeable future, fails to meet initial burden).
Based on this authority, and upon full consideration of the record presented by way
of the parties’ submissions, the court finds that petitioner has failed to meet his initial
burden under Zadvydas to “provide[ ] good reason to believe that there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future ….” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.
Accordingly, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States” for the purposes of granting habeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and his petition must be denied.5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied, and the case is dismissed. This
dismissal is without prejudice to file another petition should it subsequently appear that
removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. See Andreenko v. Holder, 2012 WL
4210286, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. September 18, 2012); Kassama, 553 F.Supp.2d at 307.
It is further ordered that certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) be entered
stating that any appeal from this Judgment would not be taken in good faith and therefore
leave to appeal as a poor person should be denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
438 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of respondent, and to

5

To the extent that petitioner seeks an order prohibiting the respondents from removing him from
the jurisdiction of this court to another detention facility, this court lacks jurisdiction to impose such an
order as decisions regarding the place of confinement of aliens subject to removal orders are within the
discretion of the Attorney General. See Rady v. Ashcroft, 193 F.Supp.2d 454, 456-57 (D.Conn. 2002); 8
U.S.C. §§ 1231(g)(1), 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

11

close the case.
So ordered.

\s\ John T. Curtin
JOHN T. CURTIN
United States District Judge
Dated: June 5

, 2013

p:\pending\2013\13-25.may23.2013

12