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

tortjurisdictionappealhabeas corpusfelonydue processdeportationnaturalization
tortjurisdictionappealhabeas corpusfelonydue processdeportationnaturalization

Related Cases

Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene
View Case »
Abiodun v. Gonzales
View Case »
Torres de la Cruz v. Maurer
View Case »
Toquero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Giap v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Giap was born in Vietnam in August 1972 and was admitted to the United States in 1989 as a lawful permanent resident alien. In 1997, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Following this conviction, the INS charged him with being deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Giap sought protection from deportation under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, but the immigration judge determined that he failed to meet his burden to show that he would be tortured in the country of removal.

Giap was born in Vietnam in August 1972. His father was an American serviceman in the Vietnam war. Giap was admitted to the United States in 1989 as a lawful permanent resident alien. In 1997, a jury in New York City convicted Giap of second-degree murder, for which he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Following that conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ('INS') charged Giap with being deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether the immigration judge erred in denying Giap's claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and whether the BIA's summary affirmance procedure violated due process.

Whether the immigration judge erred in denying Giap's claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and whether the BIA's summary affirmance procedure violated due process.

Rule

Habeas review of deportation orders extends only to statutory or constitutional claims and does not extend to review of factual or discretionary determinations.

Habeas review of deportation orders extends only to statutory or constitutional claim[s]; it does not extend to review of factual or discretionary determinations.

Analysis

The court found that Giap did not argue that the immigration judge made any legal errors in denying his claim under the Convention, making his claim not cognizable on habeas review. Additionally, the court concluded that the BIA's summary affirmance procedure did not violate due process, agreeing with other federal appeals courts that have addressed this issue.

The court found that Giap did not argue that the immigration judge made any legal errors in denying his claim under the Convention, making his claim not cognizable on habeas review. Additionally, the court concluded that the BIA's summary affirmance procedure did not violate due process, agreeing with other federal appeals courts that have addressed this issue.

Conclusion

The court denied Giap's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The court denied Giap's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Who won?

The Immigration and Naturalization Service prevailed in the case because the court found that Giap's claims were largely beyond its jurisdiction and meritless.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service prevailed in the case because the court found that Giap's claims were largely beyond its jurisdiction and meritless.

You must be