Following is a copy of an actual Habeas Corpus turned in for a case. I have tweeked a few things so that you can cut and paste and put it to use. Please do not hire an immigration lawyer. They charge you $5,000 to $7,500 for this document IF they know it even existing. I have heard of too many cases detainees` immigration lawyers just took their money and disappeared.
If you have been detained at an immigration detention center for more than 6 months, then this, Habeas Corpus, is to tell you and ultimately the U.S. Homeland Security that they are in violation of the law. Read the content.
If anybody would like a real copy of it, since there is a certain way to do the title page, please feel free to leave a message stating so with your email address. I would be more than glad to send it to you.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHIEF OF OPERATION
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2241.
ETOWAH COUNTY JAIL
827 Forrest Ave
COMES NOW, PETITIONER, _________ hereby petitions this court for a “writ of habeas corpus’ pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) to remedy petitioner’s unlawful detention by Respondents. In support of the petition and complaint for injustice relief, petitioner alleges as follows:
1. Petitioner is in the physical custody of Respondent and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (I.C.E.). Petitioner is currently detained at the Etowah County Jail Gadsden, Alabama. The Respondent, I.C.E., has contracted with Etowah County Jail to house Immigration detainees such as Petitioner. Petitioner is under the direct control of Respondent and their agents. Therefore, this Court has Jurisdiction over Petitioner’s place of confinement.
2. This action arises under the constitution of the United States and Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) 8 U.S.C. §1101 et. seq. as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration responsibility Act of 1996. (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 stat. 1570, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et. esq.
3. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; act I § 9,cl.2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause); and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as petitioner is presently in the custody under color of the United States, and such custody violates the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. This court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 5 U.S.C § 702, and the all writs Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 1651.
4. Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies to the extent required by law.
5. Pursuant to BRADEN V. 30TH judicial circuit court of Kentucky, 401 U.S.C. 484, 493 – 500 (1973), venue lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judicial District in which Petitioner resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e).
6. Petitioner _______ is a native and citizen of ______. Petitioner was transferred into ICE custody on _______and has remained in ICE custody continuously since that date. Further, Petitioner wishes to notify this honorable court that he migrated to the United States as a refugee.
7. Respondent Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States who is responsible for the administration of the DHS/ICE and the implementation enforcement of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). As such, Mr. Gonzales has ultimate custodian authority over Petitioner.
8. Respondents Raymond Ramonse is the District Director of the Atlanta District Office of the ICE and is the Petitioner’s immediate custodian. See Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 690 (1st cir. 2002), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 43 (2001).
9. Respondent DAVIS VENTURELLA is the Director for ICE Headquarters Post Order Detention Unit (HQPDU). The HQPDU makes final custody decision for certain aliens like Petitioner with a final order of exclusion. See 8 CFR § 241.4(c)(2).
10. Petitioner is a native and citizen of ______who first arrived in the United States on or about ______ through _______ Airport, _______. He has continuously lived in the United States since that date.
11. Petitioner was ordered deported on or about _________, based on his criminal conviction for _________ by the Immigration Judge in Atlanta, Georgia.
12. The Supreme Court suggested the constitution prohibited an administrative agency from making unbelievable decision affecting one’s fundamental rights.
13. Petitioner had his non-appearance custody review on _______, 200_ with a decision to continue detention. The Supreme Court held in Zadvydas v Davis, that indefinite detention of a removable criminal alien after a removal proceeding would violate a due process right to liberty under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 682, 121 S.Ct. 2491. The Court also held post-order that detention of aliens may continue past 90 days, but only after an individual administrative review. 121 S.Ct. at 2495. Also, Title 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(1)(A) states as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, when an alien is ordered removed, the
Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of
8 C.F.R. § 241 (d) states as follows:
Custody determinations. A copy of any decision by the District Director, Director
Of the Detention and Removal Field Office, or Executive Associate Commissioner
to release or to detain an alien shall be provided to the detained alien. A decision
to retain custody shall briefly set forth the reasons for the continued detention.
8 C.F.R. § 241.4(h)(2) states as follows:
Notice to Alien. The district director or Director of the Detention and Removal
Field Office will provide written notice to the detainee approximately 30 days in
advance of the pending records review so that the alien may submit information in
writing in support of his or her release.
Clearly, the I.C.E. is in violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights in view of the finding in Zadvydas v. Davis and the facts present in his case. Petitioner has been under I.C.E. custody for more than six months without I.C.E. holding an custody review to explain the reasons for his continued detention.
14. Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies to the extent required by law, and his only remedy is by way of this judicial action. The ultimate authority to interpret and give meaning to Federal Statute is vested in the Courts of the United States, and not in the administrative agencies that are charged with enforcing those statutes. See: U.S. Constitution Act.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RELIEF SOUGHT
15. Under the current custody review regulations, there is no appeal available from an HQPDU custody decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(g)(2). While the regulations direct the HQPDU to acknowledge receipt of a custody review request within ten business days, see 8 C.F.R § 241.13(e)(i), the HQPDU is not required to issue a decision within any particular length of time, and there is no administrative mechanism for compelling HQPDU to issue a decision; see 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(g).
16. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme court held that six months is the presumptively reasonable period during which ICE may detain aliens in order to effectuate their removal. id. at 702. Interim administrative regulations also recognize that the HQPDU has a six-month period for determining whether there is any significant likelihood of alien’s removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. 8 C.F.R. § 241. 13 (b) (2)(ii).
17. Similarly in Benitez v. ICE 543 U.S. 03-878, 03-7434 (Jan. 2005) the Supreme Court held that continued detention of an alien after the six-month removal period if there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future is unlawful.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
18. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraph 1 through 17 above.
19. Petitioner’s continued detention by Respondents is unlawful and contravenes 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(6), as interpreted in the Supreme Court in Zadvydas.
20. Petitioner’s ninety day statutory removal period and six-month presumptively reasonable period for continued removal efforts both have passed. Petitioner has still not been removed. In Zadvydas vs. Davis and Benitez vs. Wallis at separate rulings, the Supreme Court held that the continued indefinite detention of someone like petitioner under such circumstances is unlawful.
The Petitioner’s ninety-day statutory removal and six-month presumptively reasonable period for continued removal period has passed. It is extremely unlikely that the Respondents will be able to remove Petitioner to Thailand or any other Country in the reasonably foreseeable future. Petitioner has assisted the immigration with fingerprint and pictures in an efforts to obtained travel documents.
The Supreme Court held in Zadvydas and Benitez that the continued detention of someone like the Petitioner under such circumstances is unreasonable and is not authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(6).
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
23. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 22 above.
24. Under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, an alien is entitled to a timely and meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he should not be detained. Petitioner in this case has been denied that opportunity.
25. The I.C.E. does not make decisions concerning alien’s custody status in a neutral and impartial manner. The failure of Respondents to provide a neutral decision maker to review the continued custody of Petitioner violates Petitioner’s rights to Procedural due process.
26. Further, Respondents have failed to acknowledge or act upon the Petitioner’s administrative request for release in a timely manner. There is no administrative mechanism in place for the Petitioner to demand a decision, ensure that a decision will ever be made, or appeal a custody decision that violates Zadvydas.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
27. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above.
28. There is no significant likelihood that Petitioner will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, because Petitioner’s detention is permanent and in violation of Petitioner’s fifth amendment due process rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this court grant the following relief:
1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter.
2. Enter a Preliminary injunction - restraining Respondents from transferring Petitioner to another Detention Center/Correctional Facility, until the disposition of this case.
3. Grant Petitioner a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to immediately release petitioner from custody.
4. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief-enjoining Respondent from further unlawful detention of Petitioner.
5. Grant any other and further relief that this court deems just and proper.
I affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS ________DAY OF ____________200_.
Etowah county detention center
827 FORREST AVE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS __________ DAY OF __________200_, A COPY OF THE FOREGOING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2241 WAS SENT BY FIRST CLASS MAIL TO:
United States Dept. Of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC. 20530-0001
Secretary of Homeland Security
425-I Street N.W.
Washington DC. 20536
Interim District Director
ICE Atlanta District Office
77 Forsyth Street,
SW. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
NORTHERN district Of ALABAMA
United States District Court
1729 5th Ave N.
Birmingham, Alabama. 35203
Director Headquarters Post Detention Unit, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
8011 Str., NW, Washington,
ETOWAH COUNTY JAIL
827 FORREST AVE
GADSDEN, ALABAMA. 35901
ETOWAH COUNTY JAIL
827 FORREST AVE
GADSDEN, ALABAMA. 35901