Saleem v. Holder, et al
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Petitioner's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is granted and the Petition is denied. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 8/28/12. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
MOHAMMAD SALEEM,
Petitioner,
vs.
ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:12 CV0154
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Introduction
Pro se petitioner Mohammed Saleem filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He names as Respondents United States Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr.,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano, DHS Ohio Field Office
Director Mark B. Hansen, and the Warden at Bedford Heights Jail in Ohio. Petitioner seeks
immediate release from custody. For the following reasons, the Petition is denied.
Facts
The DHS issued a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal (Form I-860) under section
235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on May 25, 2011. The immigration officer
concluded that Petitioner was subject to removal from the United States because he was: (1) not a
United States citizen or national; (2) a native citizen of Pakistan; (3) a nonimmigrant not in
possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card; and (4) paroled into
the United States on February 22, 2005.
Petitioner alleges he was taken into physical custody by Immigration Customs Enforcement
(ICE) on or about October 6, 2011. Some time thereafter, an asylum officer interviewed Petitioner.
“Immediately” thereafter, Petitioner applied for a "prima facie asylum claim" in the immigration
court. A Notice to Appear (NTA), dated October 31, 2011, was issued to Petitioner “after an
asylum officer . . . found that the respondent has demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or
torture.” The NTA ordered Petitioner to appear before an immigration judge and show why he
should not be removed from the United States.
The date and time of the hearing were “to be
calendared.” The matter was pending at the time this Petition was filed on January 20, 2012.
Standard of Review
Under section 2241(c) of Title 28, habeas jurisdiction “shall not extend to a prisoner unless
... [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A court is required to award an application for writ of habeas corpus "unless
it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28
U.S.C. § 2243. The Sixth Circuit has consistently held that "[t]he burden to show that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States is on the prisoner." Allen v. Perini, 424
F.2d 134, 138 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 906 (1970). Where a habeas petition appears
legally insufficient because a prisoner fails to meet his burden, a federal court is authorized to
dismiss the petition on its face. See e.g. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
Discussion
-2-
Petitioner asserts that the Respondents have violated his rights to substantive and procedural
due process, as well as a statutory right to humanitarian parole. Petitioner claims he filed a
“formal” request with the DHS for humanitarian release on parole, but has not received a reply.
Petitioner believes he has a Constitutional right to a timely and meaningful response to his parole
request, and that his continued detention violates his statutory rights as an inadmissable alien to
parole for “urgent humanitarian reasons” given that he suffers from severe kidney failure and other
physical disabilities.
For the following reasons, the Petition is denied.
As stated above, the DHS determined that Petitioner was inadmissible to the United States
and ordered removed. Petitioner thereafter requested asylum, and his continued detention was
mandated by statute. During the period of detention while awaiting a decision on a request for
asylum, judicial review is limited. See 8 U.S.C. §1252. To the extent habeas relief is available,
judicial review is limited to determinations of-(A) whether the petitioner is an alien,
(B) whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, and
(C) whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, has been admitted as a refugee under section
1157 of this title, or has been granted asylum under section 1158 of
this title, such status not having been terminated, and is entitled to
such further inquiry as prescribed by the Attorney General pursuant
to section 1225(b)(1)(C) of this title.
8 U.S.C. §1252(e)(2); see Brumme v. Immigration Naturalization Serv., 275 F.3d 443 (5th
Cir.2001). Petitioner does not allege that these determinations are at issue, but challenges his
continued detention as unconstitutional.
-3-
An individual in federal custody pending removal may challenge the constitutionality of his
confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533
U.S. 289, 312 n. 35 (2001). The indefinite detention of a deportable alien is unconstitutional. See
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). This includes aliens, like Petitioner, “ordered removed
who are inadmissible.” Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005).
However, the relevant “removal period” only begins after a final order of removal is issued.
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682. Once a removal order is in place, a mandatory 90-day statutory removal
period is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). At the conclusion of the ninety day period, the alien
may be released under the Attorney General's supervision, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3), or detained beyond
the ninety day removal period if he is “inadmissible under section 1182 of this title.” 8 U.S.C. §
1231(a)(6). Detention beyond the 90 days must be limited to “a period reasonably necessary to
bring about the alien's removal from the United States.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689. The Zadvydas
court held that a six-month detention is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701.
Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because at the time he filed his Petition,
his request for asylum had not yet been denied. Nor is there any indication that his request will be
pending “indefinitely.” See Paulis v. Sava, 544 F.Supp. 819, 821 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (“[T]he
Constitution imposes some outer limit on the length of time that [an alien] can be detained while the
government processes his case.”) Thus, no final order has been issued and the Petition is not
presently ripe for consideration.1 See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 114 (1976) (per curiam).
1
This does not preclude Petitioner from filing another habeas petition regarding his
detention once a final order of removal is issued. A review of the ICE Online Detainee Locator
System reveals, however, that Petitioner is no longer listed in ICE custody. See
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do
-4-
Additionally, because an alien’s entitlement to parole is completely discretionary to the
Attorney General, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), this Court cannot compel the DHS to issue an
immediate response to Petitioner’s request.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No.
2) is granted and the Petition is denied. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could
not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 8/28/12
-5-
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?