Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Corredor v. Holder (10th Cir July 23, 2012) what was the point

309 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Corredor v. Holder (10th Cir July 23, 2012) what was the point

  1. 1. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-2075.pdf FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 24, 2012 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court RICARDO CORREDOR, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 12-2075 v. (D.C. No. 1:12-CV-00186-JCH-CG) (D. of N.M.) ERIC HOLDER, United States Attorney General; JANET NAPOLITANO, United States Secretary of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR FOR ALBUQUERQUE FIELD OFFICE; UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; LEE VAUGHN, Warden of the Cibola Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT *Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. ** * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under thedoctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10thCir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judgepanel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of materialassistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10thCir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
  2. 2. Ricardo Corredor, a native and citizen of Colombia, is a federal prisoner atthe Cibola County Correctional Center (CCCC) in Milan, New Mexico. Corredorfiled a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for habeas relief relating toimmigration proceedings, which the district court denied. We construeCorredor’s filing liberally because he is proceeding pro se. See Hall v. Bellmon,935 F.2d 1106, 1110 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1991). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. I. Background Corredor pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Districtof Arizona to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to37 months’ imprisonment. Corredor then filed a petition for a writ of habeascorpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District of New Mexico, the jurisdictionwhere he is serving his sentence. The central allegation in Corredor’s petition isthat Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will keep him in custody forremoval proceedings past the time when his criminal incarceration ends.Accordingly, Corredor seeks relief from ICE’s discretionary decision as towhether to expedite his removal proceedings. The district court denied the petition, finding that an “attack on . . . adiscretionary decision is outside the scope of habeas review in § 2241 petitions.”R., Vol. I at 13 (citation omitted). The court further held that this ruling was with -2-
  3. 3. prejudice, but clarified that the ruling was without prejudice with respect toCorredor’s “rights in administrative removal proceedings or in prosecuting claimscognizable under § 2241.” Id. Corredor appeals. II. Discussion We review the district court’s denial of Corredor’s habeas petition de novo.See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Corredor argues that his pending deportation order could be expedited as aresult of (a) his consent to be immediately deported, (b) CCCC’s capability tohold immigration proceedings via video conference at any time, or (c) CCCC’scapability to hold live immigration proceedings at any time. Corredor believesthat failure to expedite the deportation process will result in a violation of theDue Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he will necessarily beconfined past the end of his 37-month imprisonment (which he has not yetcompleted). But as the district court correctly held: [T]he Attorney General (and, in turn, the INS, as [his] designee) has broad discretion in deciding, administratively, whether and when to pursue deportation against an alien. The Attorney General’s responsibility in this regard is akin to his responsibility for enforcing the criminal laws: in both situations, he has discretion to refrain from instituting proceedings even though grounds for their commencement may exist. An alien illegally in the United States cannot force the Attorney General’s hand by the simple expedient of calling attention to his status and demanding immediate action. -3-
  4. 4. R., Vol. I at 12–13 (quoting Costa v. INS, 233 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). It is important to note that the Fifth Amendment violation that Corredor has complained of has not yet occurred. At this point he does not know whether he will be one of “the many cases in which removal proceedings are completed while the alien is still serving time for the underlying conviction . . . . [in which case,] the alien[] involved [is] never subjected to mandatory detention.” Demore v. Hyung Joon Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 529–30 (2003). III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, we AFFIRM. Entered for the Court, Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit JudgeThe petitioner was sentenced to 37 months so, he was not convicted under 8 USC 1326(a) which hasa maximum penalty of 2 years (24 months) imprisonment. Paragraphs (b) and (c) pertain to alienspreviously deported or removed pursuant to an order either from an DHS or an IJ (including"stipulated" orders). Paragraph (d) sets limits on attacking an order of removal..The habeas petition was filed because the petitioner fears being held (after completion of his 37month sentence) on an ICE detainer which may not even exist, during future Removal Proceedingsthat are not required in the first place..As an alien who reentered illegally after removal and who was convicted for that reentry is not entitledto any further Removal Proceedings. His only real option would have been to collaterally the RemovalOrder in judicial proceedings but since he did not do so, he probably has no basis to attack it..The prior Removal Order may be reinstated and he may be summarily removed upon completion ofhis prison sentence. -4-

×