Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionstatutehearingmotionhabeas corpusleaseprobationdue processdeportationnaturalizationjudicial reviewrespondent
jurisdictionstatutehabeas corpusleaseregulationdue processliens

Related Cases

Armentero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Ovalles v. Holder
View Case »
Heredia v. Shanahan
View Case »
Duckett, Matter of
View Case »
Bangura v. Hansen
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Galvez v. Lewis

Facts

Petitioner, Neris Alfredo Galvez, is a thirty-one-year-old citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection in January 1990. He was convicted for possession of cocaine in July 1994 and sentenced to six months, with all time suspended and two years of probation, which he completed in May 1996. In January 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested him based on his conviction and placed him in detention pending deportation. He filed a motion for release on bond, which the immigration judge initially denied, citing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

Petitioner, Neris Alfredo Galvez, is a thirty-one-year-old citizen of El Salvador. He entered the United States without inspection near San Diego, California on or about January 20, 1990. Petitioner is married and his wife, Alba Consuelo Lopez, is a United States citizen.

Issue

Whether section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') applies to Petitioner; and if that section does apply, whether the statute is unconstitutional on its face as violative of procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The issues presented are: (1) whether section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') applies to Petitioner; and (2) if that section does apply to Petitioner, whether the statute is unconstitutional on its face as violative of procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Rule

The court holds that it lacks jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's decision that INA 236(c) does or does not apply to an alien like Petitioner who is being detained. The statute does not violate procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's decision that INA 236(c) does or does not apply to an alien like Petitioner who is being detained. On the constitutional question, the Court holds that the statute does not violate procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Analysis

The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge's decision regarding the application of INA 236(c) to Petitioner, as that decision was effectively a denial of bond, which is not subject to judicial review under the INA. Even if jurisdiction existed, the court found that Petitioner, as an unlawful alien, had no right to an individualized bond hearing, and thus the application of 236(c) did not violate his due process rights.

The Court further concludes that even if the TPCR did apply to Petitioner, he still would not be eligible for release from custody under federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. 236.1(c)(2), which governs custody issues and release procedures for aliens not lawfully admitted.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge's decision and that even if it had jurisdiction, Petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing due to his unlawful status.

Thus, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Who won?

The Respondent prevailed in the case as the court denied the petitioner's request for habeas corpus, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge's decision and that the application of 236(c) did not violate due process.

The court denied petitioner's petition, finding the court was without jurisdiction to review the immigration judge's decision that 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) applied to petitioner, because that decision was in effect a denial of bond, and the INA prevented review of a decision denying an alien's request for bond.

You must be