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

jurisdictionappealhearingpleahabeas corpusdeportationjudicial reviewlienspiracy
jurisdictionappealhearingpleahabeas corpusdeportationjudicial reviewlienspiracy

Related Cases

Prekaj v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
St. Cyr; Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
View Case »
Rabiu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Escoto-Castillo v. Napolitano
View Case »
Pastor-Camarena v. Smith
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Turkhan v. Perryman

Facts

Turkhan is a citizen of Iraq who immigrated to the United States as a permanent resident in 1979. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, leading to deportation proceedings initiated by the INS. Turkhan conceded deportability during his hearing and applied for discretionary relief under INA 212(c), which was denied by the immigration judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, and Turkhan subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court, which was also denied.

Turkhan is a citizen of Iraq who immigrated to the United States as a permanent resident in 1979. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, leading to deportation proceedings initiated by the INS. Turkhan conceded deportability during his hearing and applied for discretionary relief under INA 212(c), which was denied by the immigration judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, and Turkhan subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court, which was also denied.

Issue

Whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) barred the petitioner from seeking discretionary relief from deportation under the former Immigration and Nationality Act.

Whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) barred the petitioner from seeking discretionary relief from deportation under the former Immigration and Nationality Act.

Rule

The AEDPA 440(a) eliminated habeas corpus jurisdiction for deportable criminal aliens and barred judicial review of final orders of deportation for those convicted of certain offenses.

The AEDPA 440(a) eliminated habeas corpus jurisdiction for deportable criminal aliens and barred judicial review of final orders of deportation for those convicted of certain offenses.

Analysis

The court applied the AEDPA's provisions, determining that Turkhan's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine classified him as a deportable criminal alien. The court noted that the AEDPA's amendments applied retroactively, thus precluding Turkhan from seeking a discretionary waiver of deportation under INA 212(c). The court found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review Turkhan's habeas corpus petition due to the AEDPA's restrictions.

The court applied the AEDPA's provisions, determining that Turkhan's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine classified him as a deportable criminal alien. The court noted that the AEDPA's amendments applied retroactively, thus precluding Turkhan from seeking a discretionary waiver of deportation under INA 212(c). The court found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review Turkhan's habeas corpus petition due to the AEDPA's restrictions.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Turkhan's petition for habeas corpus was barred by the AEDPA, which applied retroactively to his case.

The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Turkhan's petition for habeas corpus was barred by the AEDPA, which applied retroactively to his case.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the district court's ruling that the AEDPA barred Turkhan from seeking discretionary relief from deportation.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the district court's ruling that the AEDPA barred Turkhan from seeking discretionary relief from deportation.

You must be