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

jurisdictionappealhabeas corpusjudicial review
jurisdictionappealhabeas corpusjudicial review

Related Cases

Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Abebe v. Mukasey
View Case »
Nogales v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Tobias-Chaves v. Garland
View Case »
Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

So v. Reno

Facts

Petitioner Chun Man So, a citizen of China and lawful permanent resident in New York, was convicted in 1993 for distributing heroin and subsequently ordered to be deported. After several legal proceedings, including a habeas corpus petition, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his request for a change of venue and his application for relief under 212(c). Following a remand from the Second Circuit, it was determined that So had already been deported to China, rendering some of his challenges moot, but the court still addressed the merits of his claims.

Petitioner Chun Man So, a citizen of China and lawful permanent resident in New York, was convicted in 1993 for distributing heroin and subsequently ordered to be deported. After several legal proceedings, including a habeas corpus petition, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his request for a change of venue and his application for relief under 212(c). Following a remand from the Second Circuit, it was determined that So had already been deported to China, rendering some of his challenges moot, but the court still addressed the merits of his claims.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals regarding the petitioner's request for a change of venue and application for relief under 212(c).

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals regarding the petitioner's request for a change of venue and application for relief under 212(c).

Rule

The scope of habeas review does not extend to the review of factual or discretionary decisions made by immigration judges and the BIA.

The scope of habeas review does not extend to the review of factual or discretionary decisions made by immigration judges and the BIA.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the discretionary decisions made by the immigration judge regarding the change of venue and the denial of the application for relief were not subject to judicial review under habeas corpus. The court noted that the Second Circuit had previously established that such discretionary decisions fall outside the jurisdiction of federal courts in habeas proceedings.

The court applied the rule by determining that the discretionary decisions made by the immigration judge regarding the change of venue and the denial of the application for relief were not subject to judicial review under habeas corpus.

Conclusion

The court denied the immigrant's habeas corpus petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions of the immigration judge and the BIA.

The court denied the immigrant's habeas corpus petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions of the immigration judge and the BIA.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the discretionary decisions made by the immigration judge and the BIA were not subject to judicial review.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that the discretionary decisions made by the immigration judge and the BIA were not subject to judicial review.

You must be