United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MADINA S. MAMADJONOVA and BAKHODIR S. MADJITOV Petitioners,
WILLIAM BARR, et al. Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF NO. 2] AND DISMISSING AMENDED MOTION
FOR RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF NO. 22]
Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge
Madina S. Mamadjonova and Bakhodir S. Madjitov (collectively
“Petitioners”) bring this motion for temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) and petition for habeas
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that despite
Petitioner Madjitov being subject to a final order of removal
from the United States, he has a constitutional due process
right to complete the “provisional unlawful presence
waiver of inadmissibility” process, which might allow
him to remain in the United States. [ECF Nos. 2,
following reasons, the Petitioners' Motion for TRO and
petition for habeas relief are DENIED.
March 12, 2006, Mr. Madjitov, a native of Uzbekistan,
properly entered the United States pursuant to a P-3 Visa.
[ECF No. 23-1 at 3]. Mr. Madjitov's stay expired on or
around July 20, 2006, but he remained in the United States
beyond his authorized stay. Id. On December 12,
2006, Mr. Madjitov filed for asylum, which was denied by an
immigration judge on August 31, 2011. Id. Because the
transcript of the immigration judge's (“IJ”)
hearing was incomplete, the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA” or “Board”) remanded the case
to the IJ to prepare a complete transcript for the
Board's review. AR775.
did so and denied Mr. Madjitov's petition for asylum a
second time on May 17, 2013, issuing a final order of
removal. [ECF No. 23-1 at 4]. In his Decision, the IJ made an
adverse credibility assessment of Mr. Madjitov, finding his
testimony and written submissions contradictory, and several
of his explanations regarding his departure from Uzbekistan
not credible. AR683-708. Petitioner Madjitov appealed, and on
July 24, 2014 the BIA affirmed the IJ's findings that
there were “numerous inconsistencies between the
respondent's testimony, his asylum applications, his
asylum interview with the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”), and the evidence of record.”
AR588-90. The BIA also denied a follow-on motion for
reconsideration on October 31, 2014. [ECF No. 23-1 at 4].
pursuing his asylum petition, Mr. Madjitov married Petitioner
Mamadjonova on September 14, 2010. [ECF No. 22-9]. On
September 15, 2012, Ms. Mamadjonova filed a Form I-130
Petition for Alien Relative, which establishes that an alien
is a spouse of a permanent United States resident, which Ms.
Mamadjonova was at that time. [ECF No. 22-4]. The petition
was approved on September 16, 2013. Id.
December 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Sarah Merriam signed out
a criminal Complaint charging Petitioner Mamadjonova's
brother, Sidikjon Mamadjonov, with unlawful procurement of
naturalization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425, false
statements on a naturalization application, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1015, and false oath or declaration under
penalty of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546.
United States v. Mamadjonov, No. 3:18-cr-00034-VAB,
ECF No. 1 (D. Conn. Dec. 21, 2017). The false statements
allegedly concerned lies about his alleged association with a
member of a known terrorist organization, Petitioner
Mamadjonova and Sidikjon Mamadjonov's brother, Saidjon
Mamadjonov. Id. at 5. When questioned by the FBI
about flying to Turkey to meet with Saidjon, Sidikjon
Mamadjonov stated that he took $20, 000 in cash with him to
make amends with his brother, and that his brother likely had
gone to Dubai to start a business, when in fact Sidikjon
Mamadjonov knew that his brother Saidjon had been killed in
May or June 2013 fighting in Syria with the
“Nusra” group, which was affiliated with ISIS.
Id. at 7. Sidikjon Mamadjonov was arrested one day
after being charged in the Complaint, on December 22, 2017.
same day, December 22, 2017, Petitioner Madjitov was detained
by ICE incident to the final order for his removal, and he
remains detained to this day. [ECF No. 22 ¶ 2].
January 17, 2018, Mr. Madjitov filed a Motion to Reopen and
an Emergency Motion to Stay Removal with the BIA. AR471-543,
544-67. On May 25, 2018, the BIA denied the Motion to Reopen
and Emergency Motion to Stay, finding it untimely under 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) because it was not filed within 90
days of the final order of removal and because “[t]he
motion d[id] not demonstrate an exceptional situation that
would warrant the exercise of our discretion to reopen these
proceedings under our sua sponte authority.” AR452.
week later, on June 1, 2018, Petitioner Madjitov filed
another Motion to Reopen and Motion to Stay Removal, noting
that the BIA, in its May 25, 2018 denial had failed to
consider Petitioner Madjitov's March 5, 2018 Amended
Motion to Reopen, which was identical to the present one.
AR11-17. In the Motion, Petitioner Madjitov argued that his
immigration proceedings should be reopened and his removal
stayed because of changed country conditions in Uzbekistan
making it more dangerous for him to return there, especially
in light of the December 2017 arrest of his brother-in-law,
Sidikjon Mamadjonov and Uzbekistan's known increase in
world-wide surveillance of those that might have a connection
to terrorism. Id. The Motion included greatly
expanded exhibits providing information on Uzbekistan's
surveillance activities. AR36-449.
30, 2018, Petitioner Madjitov filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Northern District of Alabama,
challenging the allegedly unconstitutionally overlong period
of detention he had suffered and claiming that venue was
proper because he was housed in the Etowah detention facility
in Gadsden, Alabama. Madjitov v. Hassel, No.
4:18-cv-01188-RDP-HNJ, ECF No. 1 at 6 (N.D. Ala. July 30,
2018). On May 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Herman N. Johnson,
Jr. recommended dismissal without prejudice to refiling at a
later, appropriate time, because Mr. Madjitov had contributed
to the length of his detention by filing appeals with the BIA
and by refusing to sign paperwork authorizing his removal.
Id., ECF No. 10 at 5-8. In response, Mr. Madjitov
filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which
he again argued that venue was proper “because the
Petitioner is detained at Etowah County Jail in Gadsden,
Alabama, ” and in which he again argued that his
detention was unconstitutionally overlong. Id., ECF
No. 11 at 5-17. On May 21, 2019, the district court adopted
the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation and dismissed
Petitioner Madjitov's petition without prejudice to
refiling at a later, appropriate time. Id., ECF No.
31, 2019, the BIA denied Petitioner Madjitov's Motion to
Stay, because “the Board has concluded that there is
little likelihood that the motion [to reopen] will be
granted.” [ECF No. 1-5].
7, 2019, Mr. Majitov filed a petition for review with the
Third Circuit seeking review of the BIA's denial of his
motion to stay removal. Madjitov. V. Attorney
General, No. 19-2327 (3d Cir. June 7, 0219). On June 10,
2019, Third Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo granted the
motion to stay removal “temporarily in order to allow a
full panel of this Court the opportunity to review and
consider Petitioner's motion for stay of removal.”
Id. (3d Cir. June 10, 2019). After review by a full
panel, the Third Circuit vacated Judge Restrepo's stay
because the BIA's denial of Mr. Madjitov's Motion for
Stay was not a reviewable final order of removal absent a
ruling on Mr. Madjitov's Motion to Reopen immigration
proceedings. Id. (3d Cir. July 30, 2019).
Third Circuit also noted that “once the BIA rules on
his second motion to reopen[, ] . . . [n]othing in this order
prevents Petitioner from filing a new petition for review in
the Eleventh Circuit, ” which is the place of
“proper venue.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(2), which states that “[t]he petition
for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the
judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the