Case ID: f-appx_92/html/0994-01.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

Isaac RAMIREZ-MOLINA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James ZIGLAR; et al., Respondents, Grace Winfrey, Interim Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 03-50596.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    DECIDED: April 12, 2004.
    Lynn Anne Coyle, El Paso, TX, Barbara Hines, Austin, TX, Javier N. Maldonado, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Papú Sandhu, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The respondent (Government) appeals the district court’s grant of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to Isaac Ramirez-Molina (Ramirez). Our review of the record and the pleadings indicates that there are issues concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies that should be addressed by the district court in the first instance. See Cano-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 262 F.3d 477, 479 (5th Cir.2001). The Immigration Judge (IJ) issued a stay in a 2002 proceeding on a motion to reopen Ramirez’s 1999 removal proceeding, but it is unclear whether further action remains to be taken at the administrative level. The district court should also address whether Ramirez has sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies concerning the 1999 removal proceeding.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of addressing the exhaustion issue with respect to both the 1999 removal proceedings and the 2002 motion to reopen. Following the district court’s determination, the case should be returned to this court. This court retains jurisdiction of the appeal during the pendency of the limited remand. See Wheeler v. City of Columbus, 686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir.1982).

LIMITED REMAND. 
      
      . Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.