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

jurisdictionpleamotionlease
jurisdictionpleamotionlease

Related Cases

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of State
View Case »
Synergy Sys., Inc.; Administrator, Wage and Hour Division v.
View Case »
Elfeky v. Johnson
View Case »
Franco-Ardon v. Barr
View Case »
Plascencia-De Haro v. Lynch
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Moreno Escobar v. Department of Justice

Facts

On October 25, 1994, petitioner, a citizen of Colombia, was sentenced in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to twenty to forty years imprisonment for two counts of third-degree murder. Petitioner is currently serving that sentence in the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, Pennsylvania. On October 1, 1997, the INS noticed a detainer against him. Since that date, no action has been taken on the detainer. Petitioner now moves the court to order a resolution of the detainer and have the immigration authorities go forward with removal proceedings.

On October 25, 1994, petitioner, a citizen of Colombia, was sentenced in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to twenty to forty years imprisonment for two counts of third-degree murder. Petitioner is currently serving that sentence in the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, Pennsylvania. On October 1, 1997, the INS noticed a detainer against him. Since that date, no action has been taken on the detainer. Petitioner now moves the court to order a resolution of the detainer and have the immigration authorities go forward with removal proceedings.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to compel the immigration authorities to proceed with removal proceedings against the petitioner while he is still serving his state sentence.

Whether the court has jurisdiction to compel the immigration authorities to proceed with removal proceedings against the petitioner while he is still serving his state sentence.

Rule

8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(4)(A) prohibits the removal of an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment until the alien is released from imprisonment.

8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(4)(A) prohibits the removal of an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment until the alien is released from imprisonment.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the immigration authorities could not remove the petitioner until he completed his state sentence. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was precluded from bringing an action to compel removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(4)(D), which states that no cause or claim may be asserted against any official to compel the release or removal of any alien.

The court applied the rule by determining that the immigration authorities could not remove the petitioner until he completed his state sentence. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was precluded from bringing an action to compel removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(4)(D), which states that no cause or claim may be asserted against any official to compel the release or removal of any alien.

Conclusion

The court denied the alien's motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The court denied the alien's motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who won?

The United States Government prevailed in the case because the court found that the immigration authorities could not act on the detainer until the petitioner completed his state sentence.

The United States Government prevailed in the case because the court found that the immigration authorities could not act on the detainer until the petitioner completed his state sentence.

You must be