Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01412/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01412-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS k ~ -

1 .· t ~. ,a.· · J:JJJL". 

TENTH CIRCUI.T UrJi'ed 8¥~ ~~~ _A;~: 

BIAO CHEN, MAO HONG, ZHAO HUI PAN, 

FENG YANG, HANG SHENG CHEN, MENG DI LI, 

DE SHENG ZHENG, HAI FENG ZHOU, 

Petitioners, 

and 

HAI HANG YANG, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JOSEPH R. GREENE, District Director U.S.) 

Immigration & Naturalization Service, ) 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEP 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKE!~ 

Cler!: 

No. 91-1412 

(D.C. No. 91-M-469) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before IIOORB, 'TACIIA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

~4(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1412 Document: 010110309499 Date Filed: 09/09/1992 Page: 1
Petitioners-Appellants Meng Di Li, Hai Hang Yang, De Sheng 

Zheng, and Hai Feng Zhou appeal from an order of the district 

court dismissing their petitions for writ of habeas corpus. On 

appeal, appellants contend that the district court erred in 

dismissing their petitions because the district director's reasons 

for denying parole were neither facially legitimate nor bona fide. 

We exercise jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. S 1291 and affirm. 

In reviewing a district director's decision to deny parole, 

"[w]e merely require the district director to have articulated 

some individualized facially legitimate and bona fide reason for 

denying parole, and some factual basis for that decision in each 

individual case." Marczak Y..:. Greene, Nos. 90-1023, 90-1024, 1992 

WL 170634, at *8 (10th Cir. July 23, 1992). In this case, the 

district director, pursuant to an order of the district court, 

wrote individualized letters denying parole for each of the 

appellants. These letters demonstrate that appellants' release 

would not be in the public interest because appellants pose a risk 

of flight. The letters specifically state that appellants 

attempted to immigrate improperly and illegally. The letters also 

indicate that appellants are not likely to succeed on their 

. application for asylum. Most importantly, the letters show that 

the district director was not persuaded by the offers of help from 

the Denver community and that appellants, with the exception of 

Yang, have no relatives that would make them less likely to 

abscond. 

After reviewing the letters, we conclude that the district 

director provided both facially legitimate and bona fide reasons 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1412 Document: 010110309499 Date Filed: 09/09/1992 Page: 2
for denying parole. Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1412 Document: 010110309499 Date Filed: 09/09/1992 Page: 3