Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Adrian Rosales petitioned for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to challenge his final order of deportation on due process grounds. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Rosales was not “in custody” under 2241 and dismissed his suit. HOLDING:Petition denied. An individual may seek habeas relief under 2241 if he is in custody under federal authority or for violation of federal law. Physical detention (or here, physical detention by federal, rather than state, authority) is no longer required for a petitioner to meet the custody requirement and obtain habeas relief. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711 (2004). The court agrees with those circuits that have held that a final deportation order subjects an alien to a restraint on liberty sufficient to place the alien in custody. E.g., Simmonds v. INS, 326 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 2003). “The federal government has placed a significant restraint on Rosales’s liberty by issuing a final order of deportation against him. It must detain him once his removal period begins at his release from state prison. 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(B)(iii), (a)(2). He is therefore”in custody’ and may seek relief under 2241.” The court considers the merits of Rosales’s petition rather than remanding because 106 of the REAL ID Act has divested the district courts of jurisdiction over 2241 petitions attacking removal orders. Although aliens have no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at deportation hearings, Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2001), due process requires that such hearings be fundamentally fair. Animashaun v. INS, 990 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1993). Rosales has not shown that he suffered prejudice due to the IJ’s failure to inform him of his right to contact the Mexican consulate. Rosales admitted in the immigration hearing that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, which makes him deportable. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), 1227(a)(2)(iii). He does not argue that he is eligible for any relief from deportation. Because he makes no showing that assistance from his consulate would have changed the result of the hearing, he is not entitled to relief on due process grounds, the court concludes. OPINION:Per curiam; Reavley, Jolly and Higginbotham, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.