Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DEEPAK KUMAR v. ILCHERT

January 2, 1992

DEEPAK KUMAR and LAKHBIR SINGH, Petitioners,
v.
DAVID N. ILCHERT, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: D. LOWELL JENSEN

 On December 11, 1991, this Court heard petitioner Deepak Kumar's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. *fn1" Jonathan M. Kaufman appeared for petitioner. Assistant United States Attorney Alberto E. Gonzalez appeared for respondent. Having considered the papers submitted, the arguments of counsel, the applicable law, and the entire record herein, the Court DENIES the petition.

 I. BACKGROUND

 Petitioner Kumar is an alien applicant for admission to the United States who is presently in the custody of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). Respondent is the District Director of the INS. Petitioner seeks review of respondent's denial of parole to petitioner, pursuant to an application for a writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241).

 On October 29, 1991 petitioner made a written request for parole. The INS denied the request on November 18, 1991. The INS failed to produce petitioner for a master calendar hearing in San Francisco on November 14, 1991. Petitioner eventually appeared before the San Francisco Immigration Court for a master calendar hearing on November 21, 1991. At that hearing, petitioner moved to terminate exclusion proceedings on the contention that respondent failed to act with reasonable dispatch to determine petitioner's admissibility to the United States. The motion was denied by order of the Immigration Court on December 20, 1991.

 Petitioner claims that the INS has caused numerous delays, preventing prompt review of his case by an immigration judge. Because of the alleged delays, petitioner claims that his detention has been unnecessarily and unlawfully prolonged. He alleges that respondent, with knowledge that petitioner is not being afforded prompt hearings, has failed to exercise his parole authority in a reasonable manner as required by regulation.

 II. DISCUSSION

 A. Standard for parole decision.

 An alien who may not appear to the INS officer at the place of arrival to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land shall be detained for further inquiry. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). An alien who arrives without documents shall also be detained. 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b). An alien detained under these provisions may request parole. In the face of such a request:

 The Attorney General may . . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest any alien applying for admission to the United States.

 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (emphasis added). The Attorney General has delegated his parole authority to INS district directors with the following guidelines:

 (a) In determining whether or not aliens . . . will be paroled out of detention, the district director ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.