Case ID: f-appx_347/html/0050-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Viktor Pavlovich MYTYUK, Petitioner-Appellant v. Warden YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-30008
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 21, 2009.
    
      Viktor Pavlovich Mytyuk, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    Melanie Suzanne Keiper, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondents Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Victor Pavlovich Mytyuk appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mytyuk is a native and citizen of Ukraine. He entered the United States as a visitor on March 28, 2001. On July 5, 2007 he was taken into custody on the grounds that he had remained in the United States longer than permitted and for failing to comply with the conditions of his admission.

Formal requests for issuance of travel documents for petitioner’s return to the Ukraine were made on April 24, May 15 and May 19 of 2008. On May 20, 2008, the Embassy of the Ukraine responded by notifying immigration officials that the forms were missing and provided the forms to the officials. Petitioner has consistently refused to complete the passport application required by the Ukraine for issuance of travel documents.

Petitioner filed this habeas petition claiming that he has been detained beyond the 90 day statutory removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). However, as the petitioner has consistently refused to “make a timely application in good faith for travel documents” the removal period was lawfully extended under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). Petitioner has also filed motions for release from detention, to institute proceedings, for oral argument, to appoint counsel for oral argument or alternatively for representation by a lay person, to strike appellee’s brief and to file a motion regarding postdated brief. These motions are DENIED. The district court’s denial of habeas corpus in AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See Balogun v. I.N.S., 9 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir.1993).