John Doe v. Rodriguez, Civil Action No. 17-1709 (JLL)
Decision Date | 29 January 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17-1709 (JLL) |
Parties | JOHN DOE, Petitioner, v. ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Presently before the Court is the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of Petitioner, John Doe, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 17, 24). The Government filed a response to the Amended Petition and Motion, (ECF No. 27), to which Petitioner has replied. (ECF No. 31). The Court decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the Amended Petition shall be dismissed without prejudice and Petitioner's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction shall be denied without prejudice as moot in light of the dismissal of his petition.
Petitioner, John Doe, is a native and citizen of Afghanistan. (See ECF No. 27-1 at 2). Between 2012 and 2017, Petitioner was employed as a waiter and cashier by a United States contractor performing services at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. (Id.). In December 2016, Petitioner was granted a Special Immigrant Visa under the SQ1 program, which provides special visas to "Afghan nationals who have been employed by or on behalf of the United States Government in Afghanistan and who have experienced an ongoing serious threat as a consequence of such employment." (Id.). On March 12, 2017, Petitioner boarded a flight to Newark, New Jersey, where he arrived the following day. (Id.).
Upon his arrival, Petitioner, as an applicant for admission into the United States, was reviewed by a primary-inspection and processing agent. (Id.). After an initial review, this agent stamped Petitioner's passport "admitted," which the Government contends was done erroneously, as Petitioner's admission review had not yet been completed. (Id.). In any event, Petitioner was not permitted to leave the airport at that time, but was instead referred to secondary-inspection processing for further review and an interview. (Id.). At some point between the conclusion of the initial review and the completion of secondary-inspection, customs officials contacted the Department of State concerning Petitioner's visa and apparently requested that the visa be revoked. (Id.). The Department of State thereafter revoked the visa and informed the customs officials about the revocation. (Id. at 3). Petitioner was thereafter prepared to be returned to Afghanistan and was scheduled for departure on March 15, 2017. (Id.).
In preparation for his flight, Petitioner was temporarily transferred to the Elizabeth Detention Center. (Id.). Counsel thereafter filed a habeas petition on Petitioner's behalf seeking Petitioner's release, as well as a motion for an emergency injunction seeking to block Petitioner's removal from the country. (Id.; see also ECF No. 1). This Court denied that injunction request, and Petitioner appealed. (ECF No. 7, 8). On March 15, 2017, the Third Circuit granted Petitioner a temporary stay from removal without ruling on any of Petitioner's other requests or addressing this Court's prior opinion and order. (ECF No. 10). Petitioner thereafter withdrew his appeal withthe Government's consent so that he could complete the litigation of his habeas petition. (ECF No. 12).
On March 24, 2017, an asylum officer interviewed Petitioner and determined that he had a credible fear of persecution if he returned to Afghanistan. (ECF No. 27-1 at 3). That same day, DHS issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear, alleging that he was inadmissible. (Id.). As part of those proceedings, Petitioner filed a motion before the immigration court in which he argued that his removal proceedings should be terminated because he had been admitted to the United States as an SQ1 immigrant when his passport was stamped, and that the revocation was invalid. (See id. at 7). By way of an opinion and order issued on August 11, 2017, an immigration judge denied that motion, finding that, because Petitioner had never completed secondary inspection, he had never been admitted into the country for immigration purposes, and that Petitioner therefore remained an applicant for admission following the revocation of his visa. (Id. at 7-9). After determining that the relevant statutes and regulations permit the State Department to revoke Petitioner's SQ1 visa at any time prior to admission into the United States, the immigration judge explained his determination that Petitioner had never actually been admitted, regardless of the stamp in his passport, as follows:
(ECF No. 27-1 at 7-8 (citations omitted)). The immigration judge, based on his finding that Petitioner remained an applicant for admission without a valid visa, sustained the charge that Petitioner was inadmissible, denied Petitioner's motion to terminate...
To continue reading
Request your trial