United States District Court, D. Maryland
BILLY G. ASEMANI, #339-096 Petitioner,
JOHN WOLFE, Warden, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
G. Asemani is a self-represented litigant who is incarcerated
at Eastern Correctional Institution. He is serving a thirty
year sentence for attempted second degree murder following
his entry of a guilty plea in 2006 in the Circuit Court of
Maryland for Howard County. Asemani filed this Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 92241, seeking to
lift a detainer lodged by the Department of Homeland
Security. Asemani also filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. For reasons to follow, this case will be
dismissed without prejudice.
states that on July 22, 2016, he was awarded a $4 million
dollar judgment in the Circuit Court of Maryland for
Allegheny County against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
detailLoc=CC. He claims that he filed the state case pursuant
to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, ("FSIA"),
28 U.S.C. 91602 and that "before any court,
state or federal, may entertain a FSIA case, it must first
conclude that plaintiff/claimant is a "United States
National." ECF 1. Asemani supposes, therefore, that
the Maryland Circuit Court determined him a United States
national. Based on this presumed determination of his
national status, he now seeks to invalidate the Department of
Homeland Security's detainer.
is an Iranian native and citizen who entered the United
States on a student visa and received an adjustment of status
to lawful permanent resident. Asemani filed applications for
citizenship in August 1997 and 1999, but never completed the
naturalization process. See Asemani v. Attorney General
of the United States, 140 Fed.Appx. 368
(3rd Cir. 2005).
1999, Asemani was indicted on twelve counts of criminal
health care fraud for practicing dentistry without a license.
Later that month he went back to Iran for over a year,
returning to the United States in October 2000. He pleaded
guilty to eleven counts in the indictment and on May 8, 2001,
was sentenced to thirty months of incarceration.
Asemani was in federal custody, the then Immigration and
Naturalization Service ("INS") (now, the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("BICE")),
initiated removal proceedings, charging him as a deportable
alien under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA") for commission of
crimes involving moral turpitude within ten years of his
acquiring the status of lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C.
§1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); see Asemani v. Attorney
General of the U.S., 140 Fed.Appx. at 368.
the time Asemani's removal proceedings were pending, he
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia under the FSIA against the Islamic
Republic of Iran for his alleged torture and false detention
based on his religious affiliation. BICE was not named in the
complaint and did not participate in these proceeding.. The
District Court determined Asemani was a "national"
of the United States for purposes of the FSIA and he had
standing to maintain the action. See Asemani v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 266 F.Supp.2d 24, 26-27 (D.D.C.
2003). The court, however, denied without
prejudice Asemani's motion for judicial declaration of
nationality pursuant to 8 U.S.C. S 1503(a) and 28 U.S.C. S
2201. See Id. The court noted that such a
declaration is only authorized where a claim is brought
against the government for denying a claimant his rights and
privileges as a United States national. See Id. at
27. Further, a court may not make a declaration of
nationality pursuant to S1503 if nationality "is in
issue in any  removal proceeding. 8 U.S.C. §
has exhaustively litigated in federal courts the issue of
whether he is a U.S. States national. Relying on the District
Court for the District of Columbia's decision, Asemani
filed habeas corpus petitions to terminate his removal by
arguing he is a U.S. national and not subject to immigration
law, including removal proceedings. Asemani filed habeas
petitions in four different district courts, thereby
"creating a procedural tangle." See In re
Asemani, 455 F.3d 296, 297 n. 1 (U.S. App. D.C.
2006). These efforts, as well as
Asemani's subsequent cases in this regard, have proved
consistently unsuccessful. See e.g. Asemani v. Department
of Justice, Civil Action No. 10-1548, 2010 WL 3730970
(D. D.C September 15, 2010) (dismissing complaint for lack of
standing); Asemani v. Napolitano, Civil Action No.
RDB-1O-1029, 2010 WL8813521 (D. Md. May 4 2010) (dismissing
complaint requesting adjudication of his citizenship
application as frivolous); Asemani v. Mukasey, et.
al, Civil Action No. RWT-08-347 2008 WL 6581129 (D. Md.
March 11, 2008) (noting the narrow ruling on Asemani's
ability to bring the FSIA claim had no bearing whether he was
lawfully detained as an alien subject to removal
provides no evidence that he has been issued a certificate of
naturalization by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services. As noted, Asemani provides no documentation to
support his claim that he was adjudged as U.S. national by
the state court. Further, this Court is unaware that the FSIA
or any other law authorizes a state trial court to determine
a foreign born person's United States citizenship, alien
status, or national status, and Asemani provides no
information to the contrary. Lastly, Asemani provides no
evidence that after obtaining the state court judgment and
before filing this Petition, he exhausted his administrative
remedies. Asemani's assertion that the instant Petition
is not another attempt to contest his removal, but to
"obtain relief as it pertains to that orders'
enforceability, " is unpersuasive. (ECF 1 at 4).
Petition does not satisfy the standard for a Certificate of
Appealabilty. A Certificate of Appealability may issue only
if there is a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
and the Petition does not meet this standard. Accordingly,
this Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
these reasons, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.