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

jurisdictionattorneyappealhabeas corpusparolejudicial reviewappellantappelleeliens
jurisdictionattorneyappealhabeas corpusparolejudicial reviewappellantappelleeliens

Related Cases

Gamero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Zubeda v. Elwood
View Case »
Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene
View Case »
AI Maqaleh v. Gates
View Case »
Hallman v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Perez-Perez v. Hanberry

Facts

The appellees, Cristobal Perez-Perez, Aristedes Machado-Matos, and Eduardo Crespo-Gomez, are Cuban detainees who along with more than 1,000 other excludable aliens have filed individual petitions for habeas corpus review of the Attorney General's refusal to parole them from the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. After determining that all of the detainees were entitled to appointed counsel, the district court selected the three appellees' cases as test cases and certified an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) for resolution of the controlling question of law.

The appellees, Cristobal Perez-Perez, Aristedes Machado-Matos, and Eduardo Crespo-Gomez, are Cuban detainees who along with more than 1,000 other excludable aliens have filed individual petitions for habeas corpus review of the Attorney General's refusal to parole them from the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. After determining that all of the detainees were entitled to appointed counsel, the district court selected the three appellees' cases as test cases and certified an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) for resolution of the controlling question of law.

Issue

Whether counsel may be appointed and compensated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A(g) in a habeas corpus action brought by an excludable alien challenging the Attorney General's refusal to parole him.

Whether counsel may be appointed and compensated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A(g) in a habeas corpus action brought by an excludable alien challenging the Attorney General's refusal to parole him.

Rule

The Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A, does not authorize the appointment and compensation of counsel in a habeas corpus action brought by an excludable alien challenging the Attorney General's refusal to parole him.

The Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A, does not authorize the appointment and compensation of counsel in a habeas corpus action brought by an excludable alien challenging the Attorney General's refusal to parole him.

Analysis

The court found that the Criminal Justice Act did not authorize the appointment of counsel at government expense for excludable aliens seeking parole. It noted that the challenges were not collateral in nature but rather direct judicial reviews of the denial of parole in an administrative immigration proceeding. Additionally, the court emphasized that the appellees had not exhausted their administrative remedies, which deprived the district court of jurisdiction.

The court found that the Criminal Justice Act did not authorize the appointment of counsel at government expense for excludable aliens seeking parole. It noted that the challenges were not collateral in nature but rather direct judicial reviews of the denial of parole in an administrative immigration proceeding. Additionally, the court emphasized that the appellees had not exhausted their administrative remedies, which deprived the district court of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The court reversed the district court's order appointing counsel to help appellee excludable aliens file petitions for writs of habeas corpus against appellant federal warden.

The court reversed the district court's order appointing counsel to help appellee excludable aliens file petitions for writs of habeas corpus against appellant federal warden.

Who won?

The appellant federal warden prevailed in the case because the court determined that the Criminal Justice Act did not authorize the appointment of counsel for excludable aliens and that the appellees had not exhausted their administrative remedies.

The appellant federal warden prevailed in the case because the court determined that the Criminal Justice Act did not authorize the appointment of counsel for excludable aliens and that the appellees had not exhausted their administrative remedies.

You must be