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

jurisdictionattorneypleamotionhabeas corpusdeportationnaturalization
jurisdictionpleahabeas corpusrespondent

Related Cases

Mustata v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Montes-Pineda; U.S. v.
View Case »
Perez v. Greiner
View Case »
Mahon v. Johnson
View Case »
Hang Chen v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Michael v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

The immigrant, a native and citizen of Guyana, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1985. After pleading guilty to a state charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in 1994, deportation proceedings were initiated against him. He filed motions to reopen and reconsider the deportation proceedings, which were denied, leading him to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to stay his deportation.

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guyana. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on August 2, 1985. On February 23, 1994 petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law 265.02, before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County.

Issue

Whether the court had personal jurisdiction to grant the petitioner's habeas corpus relief against the INS District Director.

The respondents are correct that a writ of habeas corpus is directed to the custodian of a detainee and no writ may issue where there is no personal jurisdiction over the custodian.

Rule

A writ of habeas corpus is directed to the custodian of a detainee, and no writ may issue where there is no personal jurisdiction over the custodian.

a writ of habeas corpus is directed to the custodian of a detainee and no writ may issue where there is no personal jurisdiction over the custodian.

Analysis

The court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the INS District Director, who was the proper custodian for the petitioner. As a result, the court could not consider the merits of the petitioner's claim for discretionary relief from deportation and determined that the case should be transferred to a court with proper jurisdiction.

Given the respondents' correct position that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, the respondents' arguments on the merits should be directed to a court that has such jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The court ordered the transfer of the case to the appropriate federal court and directed the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana to show cause why the immigrant's deportation should not be stayed.

For the reasons stated above, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this petition and orders this case to be transferred forthwith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Lake Charles Division).

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) as the court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the case.

The respondents are correct that a writ of habeas corpus is directed to the custodian of a detainee and no writ may issue where there is no personal jurisdiction over the custodian.

You must be