Mohammad Nadeem v. Phillip Crawford , 465 F. App'x 659 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD NADEEM, No. 08-16218
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-CV-00145-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
PHILLIP CRAWFORD, Field Office
Director, Immigration & Customs
Enforcement,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Mohammad Nadeem appeals from the district court’s decision denying his
petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2441. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
habeas corpus, Pelich v. INS, 329 F.3d 1057, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004), and we vacate
and remand.
Nadeem’s release subject to an order of supervision does not render his
habeas petition moot where his release may be revoked at any time in the exercise
of discretion, see 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2)(i), and is contingent on electronic
monitoring, scheduled and unscheduled meetings with a detention officer, and a
curfew. See Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010).
The district court determined that Nadeem’s continued detention was
authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). However, the district court did not have
the benefit of our recent decision in Owino v. Napolitano, 575 F.3d 952, 955 (9th
Cir. 2009), requiring an evidentiary hearing where there is a factual dispute
regarding the likelihood an alien will be removed. We therefore vacate the district
judge’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing regarding whether Nadeem
fully and honestly cooperated with the government’s efforts to secure his travel
documents from the Pakistani and South African governments.
We grant the government’s motion to expand the record.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Nadeem’s remaining
contention regarding the violation of international law.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2 08-16218