As for Petitioner's claim that procedural due process requires that the POCR be conducted by an unbiased and neutral arbitrator, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to habeas relief on that ground,, and the Court has found no support for it. See Ali v. Lynch, No. 1:16-CV-1182, 2017 WL 1535116, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:16CV1182, 2017 WL 2191047 (S.D. Ohio May 17, 2017) (rejecting claim that alien is entitled to "neutral decision-maker" at POCR); Atugah v. Dedvukaj, No. 2:16cv68, 2016 WL 3189976, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2016)), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 3166600 (W.D. Mich. June 7, 2016) (rejecting claim that lack of neutral decision maker to review continued detention violated alien's due process rights, pointing out that alien could bring habeas petition); Moses v. Lynch, No. 15-cv-4168, 2016 WL 2636352, at *4 (D. Minn. Apr. 12, 2016) (holding that in the absence of "some indication ... that ICE failed to comply with any specific requirements" of custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process); Mareya v. Mukasey, No. 06-cv-4525 RHK/RLE, 2007 WL 4373012, at *10-13 (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2007) (finding that when immigration officials reach continued-custody decisions for aliens who have been ordered removed according to the custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, such aliens receive the process that is constitutionally required). III.
(See Doc. 1 at PageID 8). There is simply no evidence in the record even remotely suggesting there is any merit to that conclusory claim. Cf. Atugah v. Dedvukaj, No. 2:16cv68, 2016 WL 3189976, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2016) (Report & Recommendation) (rejecting a similar claim as meritless), adopted, 2016 WL 3166600 (W.D. Mich. June 7, 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-1862 (6th Cir. June 22, 2016); Moses, supra, 2016 WL 2636352, at *4 (holding in an analogous case that in the absence of "some indication . . . that ICE failed to comply with any specific requirements" of custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process). Accordingly, in sum, the undersigned concludes that petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because he has not shown that he is currently in ICE custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
There is simply no evidence in the record even remotely suggesting there is any merit to his conclusory claim. Cf. Atugah v. Dedvukaj, No. 2:16cv68, 2016 WL 3189976, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2016) (Report & Recommendation) (rejecting a similar claim as meritless), adopted, 2016 WL 3166600 (W.D. Mich. June 7, 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-1862 (6th Cir. June 22, 2016); Moses, supra, 2016 WL 2636352, at *4 (holding in an analogous case that in the absence of "some indication . . . that ICE failed to comply with any specific requirements" of custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process).
(See Doc. 1 at PageID 4-5). There is simply no evidence in the record even remotely suggesting there is any merit to that conclusory claim. Cf. Atugah v. Dedvukaj, No. 2:16cv68, 2016 WL 3189976, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2016) (Report & Recommendation) (rejecting a similar claim as meritless), adopted, 2016 WL 3166600 (W.D. Mich. June 7, 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-1862 (6th Cir. June 22, 2016); Moses, supra, 2016 WL 2636352, at *4 (holding in an analogous case that in the absence of "some indication . . . that ICE failed to comply with any specific requirements" of custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process). Accordingly, in sum, the undersigned concludes that petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because he has not shown that he is currently in ICE custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Although petitioner has not shown an entitlement to relief at this time, if his detention continues for an extended period, he may be able to make the requisite showing under Zadvydas at a later time.
(See Doc. 1 at PageID 4-5). There is simply no evidence in the record even remotely suggesting there is any merit to that conclusory claim. Cf. Atugah v. Dedvukaj, No. 2:16cv68, 2016 WL 3189976, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2016) (Report & Recommendation) (rejecting a similar claim as meritless), adopted, 2016 WL 3166600 (W.D. Mich. June 7, 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-1862 (6th Cir. June 22, 2016); Moses, supra, 2016 WL 2636352, at *4 (holding in an analogous case that in the absence of "some indication . . . that ICE failed to comply with any specific requirements" of custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process). Accordingly, in sum, the undersigned concludes that petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because he has not shown that he is currently in ICE custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Although petitioner has not shown an entitlement to relief at this time, if his detention continues for an extended period, he may be able to make the requisite showing under Zadvydas at a later time.
There is simply no evidence in the record even remotely suggesting there is any merit to that conclusory claim. Cf. Atugah v. Dedvukaj, No. 2:16cv68, 2016 WL 3189976, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2016) (Report & Recommendation) (rejecting a similar procedural due process claim as meritless), adopted, 2016 WL 3166600 (W.D. Mich. June 7, 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-1862 (6th Cir. June 22, 2016); Moses v. Lynch, No. 15cv4168, 2016 WL 2636352, at *4 (D. Minn. Apr. 12, 2016) (Report & Recommendation) (holding that in the absence of "some indication . . . that ICE failed to comply with any specific requirements" of custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process), adopted, 2016 WL 2596020 (D. Minn. May 5, 2016). Respondents have pointed out in the return of writ that petitioner is entitled to "certain administrative reviews of his continued custody" and that federal immigration officials have "complied with these requirements" in this case.
There is simply no evidence in the record even remotely suggesting there is any merit to that conclusory claim. Cf. Atugah v. Dedvukaj, No. 2:16cv68, 2016 WL 3189976, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2016) (Report & Recommendation) (rejecting a similar claim as meritless), adopted, 2016 WL 3166600 (W.D. Mich. June 7, 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-1862 (6th Cir. June 22, 2016); Moses, supra, 2016 WL 2636352, at *4 (holding in an analogous case that in the absence of "some indication . . . that ICE failed to comply with any specific requirements" of custody-review procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations, petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process). Accordingly, in sum, the undersigned concludes that petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 because he has not shown that he is currently in ICE custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.