From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ALI v. CRAWFORD

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jun 8, 2007
No. CV 06-01149-PHX-EHC (D. Ariz. Jun. 8, 2007)

Summary

holding where petitioner contested removability, prolonged detention violated Tijani even if not due to the unreasonable delay of the INS

Summary of this case from Judulang v. Chertoff

Opinion

No. CV 06-01149-PHX-EHC.

June 8, 2007


ORDER


Petitioner Mohammed Ali filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing that his detention for four years while his removal proceedings have been pending is unlawful. (Dkt. 1). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Duncan for Report and Recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Duncan issued a R R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Dkt. 12). The R R recommends that the Court grant the Petition and that the Court either order Petitioner's release from custody under an order of supervision, or, in the alternative, order Respondents to provide a hearing to Petitioner within sixty (60) days of its Order before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless Respondents establish that he is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community. (Dkt. 12).

Respondents filed their Objections to the R R. (Dkt. 15). Petitioner filed a Declaration in response to Respondents' Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 17). Petitioner filed a Response to Government's Objections together with a Declaration. (Dkts. 18-19).

Standard of Review

A district court judge reviews a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Discussion

The Court having reviewed the record de novo, including the Objections filed by the Respondents, adopts in full the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates the same as part of this Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED in full. (Dkt. 12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondents' Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are DENIED. (Dkt. 15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall have sixty (60) days from the date this Order is filed to provide a hearing to Petitioner before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless Respondents establish that Petitioner is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondents fail to provide a hearing to Petitioner before an Immigration Judge within sixty (60) days of the date this Order is filed, Petitioner shall be released from custody under an order of supervision.


Summaries of

ALI v. CRAWFORD

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jun 8, 2007
No. CV 06-01149-PHX-EHC (D. Ariz. Jun. 8, 2007)

holding where petitioner contested removability, prolonged detention violated Tijani even if not due to the unreasonable delay of the INS

Summary of this case from Judulang v. Chertoff
Case details for

ALI v. CRAWFORD

Case Details

Full title:Mohammed Ali, Petitioner, v. Phillip Crawford, Field Office Director, ICE…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jun 8, 2007

Citations

No. CV 06-01149-PHX-EHC (D. Ariz. Jun. 8, 2007)

Citing Cases

Zhang v. Gonzales

Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner's continued detention is not authorized…

Mau v. Chertoff

Thus, Respondents contend the requirements and limitations of Rule 53 are inapposite. Respondents point out…