Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0780-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yuri YUSOV, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James M. SHAUGHNESSY, Supervisory Deportation Officer, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-5163-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2010.
    Yuri Yusov, pro se, New York, New York, for Appellant.
    Patricia Buchanan, Assistant United States Attorney (Sue Chen, Special Assistant United States Attorney and Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, RALPH K. WINTER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-Appellant Yuri Yusov, pro se, appeals from the November 20, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sand, J.) denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews the denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. See Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89, 96 (2d Cir.2006). Having reviewed the appellant’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion.

We note, however, that while the appellant’s broad-based attack on the conditions of his release is without merit, our rejection of that attack does not represent an endorsement of the reasonableness of any particular condition. As the government pointed out at oral argument, the appellant remains free to request changes in those conditions from the agency, and to pursue administrative appeals of the denial of any such requests. The dismissal of the present action is without prejudice to any avenue of judicial review that may be available to the appellant to challenge any final decision of the agency rejecting such specific requests.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.