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

jurisdictionattorneyappealpleahabeas corpuslienspiracy
jurisdictionattorneyappealpleahabeas corpuslienspiracy

Related Cases

J.E.F.M. v. Lynch
View Case »
Yi Xian Chen v. Holder
View Case »
Lewis v. Thompson
View Case »
Hughes v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Guardado v. U.S.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kolkevich v. AG

Facts

Petitioner Vladislav Kolkevich is a twenty-five-year-old male native and citizen of Russia who arrived in the United States with his mother and father on March 11, 1994 at the age of thirteen. Kolkevich became a lawful permanent resident on May 3, 1995. Although both of his parents have since become United States citizens, Kolkevich has not achieved that status. On June 18, 2001, Kolkevich was convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas of two counts of robbery, two counts of criminal conspiracy, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of receiving stolen property. He was then sentenced to a term of 4 1/2 to 10 years in prison and remains incarcerated.

Petitioner Vladislav Kolkevich is a twenty-five-year-old male native and citizen of Russia who arrived in the United States with his mother and father on March 11, 1994 at the age of thirteen. Kolkevich became a lawful permanent resident on May 3, 1995. Although both of his parents have since become United States citizens, Kolkevich has not achieved that status. On June 18, 2001, Kolkevich was convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas of two counts of robbery, two counts of criminal conspiracy, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of receiving stolen property. He was then sentenced to a term of 4 1/2 to 10 years in prison and remains incarcerated.

Issue

At issue in this case are the rights of a criminal alien to challenge the final order of removal entered against him by the Attorney General, notwithstanding the fact that the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005 cut off Petitioner's right to file a petition for habeas corpus relief.

At issue in this case are the rights of a criminal alien to challenge the final order of removal entered against him by the Attorney General, notwithstanding the fact that the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005 cut off Petitioner's right to file a petition for habeas corpus relief.

Rule

Section 106(a) of RIDA eliminated the availability of habeas corpus relief in the district courts for aliens seeking to challenge orders of removal. Instead, Congress substituted petitions for review, filed with the courts of appeals within the first 30 days after issuance, as the sole vehicle whereby aliens could challenge their removal.

Section 106(a) of RIDA eliminated the availability of habeas corpus relief in the district courts for aliens seeking to challenge orders of removal. Instead, Congress substituted petitions for review, filed with the courts of appeals within the first 30 days after issuance, as the sole vehicle whereby aliens could challenge their removal.

Analysis

The court determined how RIDA applied to those aliens. In light of exceedingly clear legislative statements, and the ambiguity in the statutory scheme, the court could not say that Congress intended to risk running afoul of the Suspension Clause by suspending the writ of habeas corpus with respect to the small class of aliens who received final orders of removal more than 30 days prior to the enactment of RIDA.

The court determined how RIDA applied to those aliens. In light of exceedingly clear legislative statements, and the ambiguity in the statutory scheme, the court could not say that Congress intended to risk running afoul of the Suspension Clause by suspending the writ of habeas corpus with respect to the small class of aliens who received final orders of removal more than 30 days prior to the enactment of RIDA.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the court was without jurisdiction to consider the alien's request for review. The court dismissed the alien's petition for review.

Accordingly, the court was without jurisdiction to consider the alien's request for review. The court dismissed the alien's petition for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Kolkevich did not file for review in a timely fashion and, consequently, the court was without jurisdiction.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Kolkevich did not file for review in a timely fashion and, consequently, the court was without jurisdiction.

You must be