FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Transcription

1 Excerpted from AILA's Immigration Litigation Toolbox, th Ed. ( 0, American Immigration Lawyers Association), and distributed with permission. VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C. 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0 Tucson, AZ 0- (0) XXXXXX VIKRAM K. BADRINATH # XXXXXX IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XXXXXX., ) Case No.: ) Date: Petitioner, ) ) ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER vs. ) XXXXXX ) 0 XXXXX, Attorney General,) XXXXXXX, Interim Director, ) U.S. Immigration & Customs ) Enforcement, XXXXXX, ) U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, ) ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR A Respondents. ) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS NOW COMES, XXXXXX, ( Petitioner/Plaintiff ), by and through undersigned counsel, Vikram K. Badrinath, Esq., and hereby petitions this 0 Honorable Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to review his unlawful removal order, unlawful detention by the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement ( ICE ), and to enjoin his deportation and removal from the United States. This action is brought pursuant to U.S.C., U.S.C., U.S.C. et seq., It is noted that under amendments to the Immigration & Nationality Act ( Act ), the term deportation has been replaced with the terminology of removal. See of the Act, U.S.C. (Supp. V ). Nevertheless, although the nomenclature is now different, the drastic consequences of banishment remain the same. See also, 0(d)() of IIRIRA, infra. - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

2 0 0 U.S.C. 0 et seq., and the All Writs Act, U.S.C., for declaratory and injunctive relief to protect his rights under both the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and applicable federal law. In support of this petition, Petitioner alleges as follows:. Mr. XXXXXX is currently under a final administrative CUSTODY order of removal and is subject to the immediate physical control and constructive custody of the ICE, located in Eloy, Arizona for the Phoenix District located at the Eloy Detention Center, 0 East Hanna Road, Eloy, Arizona ( Eloy Sub-Office ). Petitioner has completed his criminal sentence to the State of California, yet remains under probation. Inasmuch as the Petitioner is the subject of a now administratively, final order of removal, the ICE (via the Eloy Sub-Office) may execute that order at any time, and the Petitioner will be removed from the United States. EXHAUSTION. Mr. XXXXXX has exhausted his administrative remedies and his only remedy is by way of this judicial action. Petitioner was previously represented by undersigned counsel at his removal hearing conducted before an Immigration Judge in Eloy, Arizona. Petitioner did not concede his deportability, as charged by the ICE, during the normal course of his removal case. On August, 00, an Immigration Judge sustained the contested charge of deportability, pursuant to (a)()(a)(iii) [aggravated felony] of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended ( Act ), U.S.C. (a)()(a)(iii) (Supp. V ), pre-termitted any potential application for - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

3 0 0 Cancellation of Removal, and ordered his deportation and removal to the Philippines. On XXXXXX, Petitioner timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ). Thereafter, in a decision dated XXXXXXX the Board dismissed his appeal, affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge finding that Petitioner s conviction constituted an aggravated felony, and ordering his deportation and removal. Accordingly, Petitioner has exhausted all available avenues for meaningful review. Moreover, it is well-settled that exhaustion is not required if it would be futile. See e.g., American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 0 F.d 0, 0 ( th Cir. ). Where, as here, the Board has issued a precedent decision determining that simple possession offenses like Petitioner s offense, constitute drug trafficking crimes, under U.S.C. (c), and are therefore aggravated felonies as defined by 0(a)()(B) of the Act, U.S.C. 0(a)()(B) (Supp. V ), exhaustion would be futile as the Board has already spoken on this issue. Furthermore, exhaustion is not required if there would be irreparable harm. See e.g., Richardson v. Reno, 0 F.d ( th Cir. ). Once removed from the United States, irreparable harm will accrue to the Petitioner, inasmuch as his order of removal will have been executed, and no Court will have jurisdiction to judicially review the same. Finally, exhaustion is not necessary where an agency s interpretation of a statute is clearly at odds with the statute s plain meaning. Id. Petitioner has no other remedy under law. Accordingly, Mr. Rodriguez has exhausted his administrative remedies. Aliens who are deportable may apply for relief from deportation (i.e., pardon) before an Immigration Judge in the form of Cancellation of Removal. See 0A(a) of the Act, U.S.C. b(a) (Supp. V ). To demonstrate eligibility for such relief, an alien must: () have continuously resided in the United States, after having been admitted in any status, for at least seven years; () maintained lawful permanent resident status for five () years; and () not have been convicted of a qualifying aggravated felony offense. Id. - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

4 0 0. No petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been previously filed. Petitioner has not previously filed a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as he is jurisdictionally barred from doing so. See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 0 F.d 0 ( th Cir. ) (finding that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the AEDPA and IIRIRA apply to Petitions for Review for aliens convicted of certain enumerated offenses). Because the Petitioner s offense constitutes an controlled substance violation, and he is deportable under (a)()(b)(i) of the Act, U.S.C. (a)()(b)(i), the Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to hear a Petition for Review. Accord Aragon-Ayon v. INS, 0 F.d, (th Cir. 000); Flores-Miramontes v. INS, F.d, - (th Cir. 000). Thereafter, no other request for judicial review, has been filed in any court to review the matter complained of herein. JURISDICTION. This action arises under the Constitution, the Immigration & Nationality Act of, as amended ( INA ), U.S.C. 0 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA ), USC et seq. Jurisdiction in this case is proper under U.S.C. (c), in that Petitioner is in the Respondents custody under or by color of law under the authority of the United States, and in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, as more fully set forth below. This Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C. et seq.; Magana-Pizano v. INS, 00 f.d 0, 0 ( th Cir. ) (holding that IIRIRA 0(c)()(G) repealed the Circuit Court s jurisdiction over petitions for review by criminal aliens, but did not remove jurisdiction for Writs of Habeas Corpus); Mojica v. Reno, et al., 0 F. Supp. 0, WL 00 (E.D.N.Y. July, ); Yesil v. Reno, F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. ); Art. I,, Cl. of the United States Constitution (the Suspension Clause ); and the common law. This Court may also exercise jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C. and may grant - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

5 0 0 relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, U.S.C. 0 et seq., and the All Writs Act, U.S.C.. Finally, this Court has mandamus jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C.. In the alternative, jurisdiction is conferred by the United States Constitution which mandates the availability of habeas corpus review and, except in desperate national circumstances not anticipated herein, prohibits suspension. See U.S. CONST. art I,, cl.. See St. Cyr v. INS, U.S. (00); Calcano-Martinez v. INS, U.S. (00) (holding that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not repealed by IIRIRA or the AEDPA). VENUE. Venue lies in the United States District Court of where Petitioner s removal proceedings have been held, where the order of removal was entered, the location of the Petitioner s custodian, where the Petitioner remains currently under executive detention and deportation, and where the ICE will execute the final order of removal. In this regard, venue lies in the District of Arizona, the judicial district where the Petitioner is currently detained, where his proceedings were conducted, the location of the custodian in this case. U.S.C. et seq. and U.S.C.. Brittingham v. United States, F.d, ( th Cir. ); Braden v. 0 th Judicial Circuit Court, 0 U.S. () (holding that a writ of habeas corpus shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. ). PARTIES. Petitioner, XXXXXX, is a twenty-six () year old, native and citizen of the Philippines, who was admitted to the United States at the age of two (), on or about May, at Los Angeles, California. Thereafter, the Petitioner s status was - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

6 0 0 adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident on August, 0. He is under a final administrative order of removal, and is under the immediate control and direct physical custody of the ICE located at the Eloy Detention Center, 0 East Hanna Road, Eloy, Arizona, as of the date of the filing of this Petition. Upon personal knowledge of specific facts, it is expected that the ICE intends to execute his now final order of removal pursuant to, U.S.C. (Supp. V ) of the Act, and he will be deported and removed from the United States to the Philippines, as soon as possible.. The Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter Respondent ), XXXXXX is Attorney General of the United States, and this action is brought against him in his official capacity. He is generally charged with the enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended ( INA ), and is further authorized to delegate such powers and authority to subordinate employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. See U.S.C. 0(a) (Supp. V ). More specifically, the Attorney General is responsible for adjudicating applications for lawful permanent resident status, non-immigrant classifications, as well as the apprehension and detention of aliens alleged to be unlawfully present in the United States and the conduct of proceedings to compel their expulsion. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Offices of the Immigration Judge are all agencies within the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review ( EOIR ) to whom the Attorney General s authority has in part been delegated, and are subject to the Attorney General s supervision.. Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter Respondent ), XXXXXX, is the U.S. ICE Interim Director of Detention and Field Operations of the Phoenix District, which controls and maintains jurisdiction of the Phoenix District Office and Eloy Sub- Office. As such, she is the Secretary of Homeland Security s designate for the Phoenix District, charged with the duty of administration and enforcement of all the functions, powers, and duties of the U.S. ICE within her district. See C.F.R. 0.(g)()(ii) (00). The Phoenix District encompasses Eloy, Arizona, within which is found at AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

7 0 0 East Hanna Road, Eloy, Arizona. See C.F.R. 00.(b)() (00). XXXXX maintains direct custody of the Petitioner at the Eloy Sub-Office which is under the control of the Phoenix District office. XXXXXX is the custodian responsible for executing the now final order of removal against the Petitioner.. Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter Respondent ), XXXXXX, is the U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security, who has replaced the functions of the Attorney General regarding the enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and is further authorized to delegate such powers and authority to subordinate employees of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. See U.S.C. 0(a) (Supp. V ); see also Homeland Security Act of 00 (Pub. L. No. 0-, Stat. ). FACTS 0. Mr. XXXXXXXX is twenty-six () years old and was born on March, in the Philippines. He was first admitted to the United States as a tourist on or about May, at Los Angeles, California at the age of two () years. Petitioner has resided in the United States since his entry in, and for the majority of his life, nearly twenty-four () years. The Petitioner s status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident on or about August, 0. The Petitioner has extensive and significant family ties in the United States. Both his mother and father are Naturalized U.S. citizens. Petitioner has two () sisters, and one () brother, all of whom are Naturalized U.S. citizens and live in the United States. Petitioner has attempted to successfully rehabilitate himself while incarcerated and completed his sentence to the State of California for his criminal offenses. During the completion of his criminal sentences owed to the State of California, Mr. XXXXXX was issued two () separate Notices to Appear (Form I-) and Warrant of Detainer (Form I-) by the Service. - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

8 0 0 Thereafter, after the completion of his sentence, he was arrested and taken into custody by the Respondents.. On XXXXXX, the Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, for the offense of Receipt of Stolen Property in violation of California Penal Code ( C.P.C. ) (a); the Petitioner was sentenced to three hundred sixty five (0) days incarceration. In addition, on that same date the Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, for the offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance, to wit: methamphetamine in violation of California Health and Safety Code ( C.H.S.C. ) (a).. At his removal proceeding, Mr. XXXXXX did not concede his deportability from the United States, as charged, pursuant to (a)()(a)(iii) of the Act, U.S.C. (a)()(a)(iii) (Supp. V ). Petitioner contested his deportability with specific legal arguments and supporting caselaw. In an oral decision dated XXXXXX, an Immigration Judge determined that Petitioner s simple Possession of a Controlled Substance conviction constituted a drug trafficking crime under U.S.C. (c), and that his offense, therefore, was an aggravated felony within the meaning of 0(a)()(B) of the Act, U.S.C. 0(a)()(B) (Supp. V ). In this regard, the Immigration Judge sustained the charge of deportability, pre-termitted all relief from removal proceedings, and ordered the Petitioner removed from the United States to the Philippines.. On XXXXXX, Petitioner with the assistance of counsel timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ). Thereafter, in a decision dated XXXXXXX, the Board dismissed the Petitioner s appeal, and affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge ordering his removal from the United States. The Petitioner was initially sentenced to one () year imprisonment in the county jail for this offense, however, that sentence was subsequently reduced as indicated. The Immigration Judge s factually finding is clearly erroneous on this point, for which the Board recognized in its decision. - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

9 0 0 Accordingly, Petitioner s order of removal became administratively final on XXXXXX XXXXXX In its decision, the Board did not address any of the arguments advanced by Petitioner on the merits of his case, and instead commented that they decline[d] to do so.. Insofar as the Petitioner s order of removal is now administratively final, he is subject to immediate deportation and removal from the United States. Petitioner, therefore, will be processed and his order of removal, executed.. Upon personal knowledge and belief, the ICE now intends to execute the final order of deportation, and deport and remove the Petitioner from the United States to the Philippines, as quickly as possible. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL INTERVENTION. The basis for this Court s habeas jurisdiction to review the Petitioner s claim is contained in U.S.C., the general grant of habeas jurisdiction bestowed on the federal district courts, which neither the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of (the AEDPA ), Magana-Pizano v. INS, 00 F.d 0, 0 ( th Cir. ) (holding that IIRIRA 0(c)()(G) repealed the Court s jurisdiction over petitions by criminal aliens, but did not remove jurisdiction for Writs of Habeas Corpus); see Mojica v. Reno, et al., 0 F. Supp. 0, WL 00 (E.D.N.Y. July, ); Yesil v. Reno, F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. ), nor the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of ( IIRIRA ), Pub. L. No. 0-0, 0 Stat. 00 (Sept. 0, ), eliminated nor amended. See St. Cyr v. INS, U.S. (00); Calcano-Martinez v. INS, U.S. (00) (holding that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not repealed by IIRIRA or the AEDPA).. The Petitioner is also entitled to have his detention under color of law reviewed under the common law and as a matter of constitutional right. The Writ of - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

10 0 0 Habeas Corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be suspended except where in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety may require it. U.S. Constitution, Art. I,, Cl. (Suspension Clause).. In the present action, the Petitioner asserts that his removal and deportation by Respondents is in violation of the Constitution, the Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act ( APA ), U.S.C. 0. LEGAL BACKGROUND AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW. A denial of a stay of removal pending judicial review of this Petition for Review would be an unconstitutional violation of Petitioner s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. If the Respondents execute the Board s final order of removal pending this review, Petitioner will be forced to spend the time pending the Writ of Habeas Corpus exiled in the Philippines, unable to remain in the United States, to continue his employment, or reside with his family. Moreover, a departure from the United States subsequent to the filing of a request for judicial review may constitute a withdrawal of the same. See Mendez v. INS, F.d ( th Cir. ); Baez v. INS, F.d ( st Cir. ); But see Singh v. Waters, F.d ( th Cir. ); Wiedersperg v. INS, F.d ( th Cir. ). If Petitioner is removed, this Court will no longer have jurisdiction to judicially review his unlawful order of removal. 0. The Supreme Court has recognized that deportation touches on important liberty issues, and that aliens, especially long time permanent residents, must be accorded due process. Rosenburg v. Flueti, U.S., (). As the length of lawful residence increases, so does an alien s liberty interest in remaining in the United States. Landon v. Plasencia, U.S., - () AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

11 . As addressed in the accompanying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner merits a discretionary stay of removal/deportation. To obtain a discretionary Stay of Deportation in this Circuit, the Petitioner must demonstrate: () substantial likelihood of success on the merits; () irreparable injury; () balance of hardships in his favor and () that the stay of deportation would not be adverse to the public interest. Cf. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 0); Accord Andreiu v. Ashcroft, F.d ( th Cir. 00); Bejjani v. INS, F.d 0 ( th Cir. 00); Mohammed v. Reno, 0 F.d ( nd Cir. 00). 0 A. PETITIONER S CONVICTION DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN AGGRAVATED FELONY OFFENSE UNDER U.S.C. (a)()(a)(iii). (INSERT LEGAL ARGUMENT HERE) COUNT ONE (Substantive Due Process Violation) 0. The allegations contained in paragraphs through above are repeated and re- alleged as though fully set forth herein.. As a lawful permanent resident, Mr. XXXXXX is protected by every clause of the United States Constitution that is not expressly reserved to citizens. This protection includes the Fifth Amendment. The finding that Petitioner s simple possession of a controlled substance conviction constitutes an aggravated felony under 0(a)()(B) of the Act, U.S.C. 0(a)()(B) (Supp. V ) violates substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution inasmuch as - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

12 0 0 the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals erred and incorrectly applied the law to Petitioner s conviction in determining his deportability under (a)()(a)(iii) of the Act, U.S.C. (a)()(a)(iii) (Supp. V ). The denial of relief without affording Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate his eligibility for relief is violative and improper.. Deportation without a meaningful opportunity to be heard interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and shocks the conscience. Hence, the Respondent s conduct is unconstitutional because it violates Mr. XXXXXX s substantive due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Deportation and removal from the United States without due process of law, additionally, interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty; it is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. COUNT TWO (Equal Protection Violation). The allegations contained in paragraphs through above are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein.. As a lawful permanent resident, Mr. XXXXXX is protected by every clause of the United States Constitution that is not expressly reserved to citizens. This protection includes the Fifth Amendment. The removal of the Petitioner from the United States on the basis of his simple Possession of a Controlled Substance conviction as a drug trafficking crime and an aggravated felony is unconstitutional inasmuch as the legal reasoning and basis supporting the order is erroneous. To not deport individuals convicted of equivalent conduct in a State which criminalizes the offense as - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

13 0 a misdemeanor rather than a felony violates equal protection and has no rational basis under the law. COUNT THREE (Procedural Due Process Violation) The allegations contained in paragraphs through above are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein.. The Board s decision also violates procedural due process, by failing to consider or address any of the Petitioner s arguments. Although the Board s decision was governed by existing Board precedent, the Board s failure to address Petitioner s arguments is improper. Deportation without a meaningful opportunity to be heard interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and shocks the conscience. Hence, the Respondents conduct is unconstitutional because it violates Mr. XXXXXX s procedural due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 0 WHEREFORE, in view of the arguments and authority noted herein and in the foregoing Memorandum, Petitioner respectfully prays this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: () (a) Issue a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the Respondents, enjoining them from removing and deporting Mr. XXXXXX; or (b) Issue an Order declaring that the Respondents conduct is unconstitutional and illegal for the following reasons: () because it violates the Petitioner s substantive due process - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

14 0 0 rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; () because it violates the Petitioner s procedural due process rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; () Issue an injunction enjoining Respondents not to deport and/or remove Mr. XXXXXX from the United States and/or transfer him from beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, until the instant action is resolved. () Declare that the Petitioner s conviction for simple Possession of a Controlled Substance conviction is not an aggravated felony as defined by 0(a)()(B), U.S.C. 0(a)()(B) (Supp. V ) such that Petitioner is not deportable from the United States. () Vacate the order of removal and remand the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Court for appropriate disposition. () Award to Mr. XXXXXX costs and reasonable attorneys fees. () Grant any other and further relief that this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, By: Vikram K. Badrinath, Esq. VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0 Tucson, Arizona 0- (0) ; XXXXXX Dated: XXXXXX at Tucson, Arizona. - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

15 VERIFICATION Vikram K. Badrinath, under penalty of perjury, states that I am an attorney employed by VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C., the attorneys for the Petitioner/Plaintiff in the foregoing Petition For A Writ of Habeas Corpus, and I affirm the truth of the contents contained therein based upon personal knowledge and from the records and decisions of the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. I further state that I have reviewed the facts, record, and statements of my client. I further state that based on that review, the above foregoing Motion for 0 Temporary Restraining Order and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are true and correct, to the best of my personal knowledge. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, By: Vikram K. Badrinath, Esq. VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0 Tucson, Arizona 0- (0) ; XXXXXX Dated: XXXXXX at Tucson, Arizona AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)

16 VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C. 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0 Tucson, AZ 0- (0) XXXXXX VIKRAM K. BADRINATH XXXXXX D.C. BAR NO XXXXXX IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XXXXXX ) Case No.: ) Date: XXXXXX 0/0/0 Petitioner, ) ) ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER vs. ) XXXXXX 0 ) XXXXXX, U.S. Attorney General,) XXXXXX, Interim Director, ) U.S. Immigration & Customs ) Enforcement, XXXXXX, ) U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Respondents/Defendants.) ) Good cause appearing therefore, and upon reading the verified petition and Petitioner's memorandum of law in support of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, all of which are filed herewith, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that XXXXXX, Attorney General, and XXXXXX, Interim Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, XXXXXX, Secretary of Homeland Security, 0 appear before this Court on the day of at am/pm, of said day, to show cause, if any he has, why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued herein, as prayed for, and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the removal of Petitioner be and the same is hereby stayed, pending the resolution of this matter, and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner appear before this Court on, at, and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of this Order to Show Cause and supporting papers upon Respondent at the office of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 0 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 00- or the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, or their authorized representative before p.m. on, be deemed good and sufficient service. DONE AND ORDERED this day of, XXXXXX. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //) - -

17 VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C. 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0 Tucson, AZ 0- (0) XXXXXX XXXXXX IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XXXXXX ) Case No.: ) Date: XXXXXX Petitioner, ) ) ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER vs. ) XXXXXX 0 ) XXXXXX U.S. Attorney General,) XXXXXX, Interim Director, ) U.S. Immigration & Customs ) Enforcement, XXXXXX, ) U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Respondents/Defendants.) ) I am a citizen of the United States over the age of years, a resident of Pima county and not a party to the instant action. My business address is: 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0, Tucson, Arizona 0-. On XXXXXX, I served a copy of the attached: Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by placing a two () copies of the same in a sealed envelope with postage fully paid thereon, and delivered by same day courier at Tucson, Arizona, addressed as follows: 0 ATTN: XXXXXX U.S. Attorney s Office Renaissance Square 0 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Vikram K. Badrinath, Esq. VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner - - AILA Doc. No 0. (Posted //)