Aziz v. Immigration and Custom Enforcement
5:17-cv-00056
S.D. Ga.Aug 28, 2017Background
- Aziz Apoudjak filed a 28 U.S.C. §2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus while detained at Folkston ICE Processing Center.
- Removal order became administratively final on December 18, 2016; six-month deadline expired June 18, 2017.
- ICE had attempted to obtain travel documents from Togo; as of the filing, documents had not been issued.
- ICE continued Aziz’s detention after determining removal was reasonably foreseeable; Embassy of Togo later advised it had not received the travel-document request, prompting resubmission.
- Aziz alleged entitlements under Zadvydas v. Davis to release after six months, but offered only conclusory claims about Togo’s actions.
- Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice and denial of in forma pauperis status on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aziz states a Zadvydas claim after six months. | Aziz argues no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. | Government bears burden to show removal is likely; delays alone do not prove unlikelihood. | No substantial likelihood shown; dismissal without prejudice. |
| Whether the petition should be dismissed with or without prejudice for future §2241 relief. | Requests relief now; argues removal may be unlikely due to delays. | Circumstances may change; dismissal without prejudice preserves ability to file anew. | Dismissal without prejudice. |
| Whether Aziz is entitled to relief on the pleadings given conclusory assertions about Togo. | Claims lack of progress shows no likelihood of removal. | Non-specific, conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim. | Claims insufficient; no habeas relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (six-month presumptively reasonable detention period; need showing of no likelihood of removal)
- Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050 (11th Cir. 2002) (two-prong test for extended detention under Zadvydas)
- Fahim v. Ashcroft, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (bare allegations insufficient to show significant unlikelihood of removal)
- Caderno v. United States, 256 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2001) (conclusory allegations without specifics do not state a claim)
- Tejada v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991) (rejects conclusory assertions unsupported by the record)
- Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (bureaucratic delays alone do not prove no significant likelihood of removal)