Opinion ID: 883934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The illegal condition of parole.

Text: When sentencing Ahmed, the District Court ordered: Should the defendant be paroled, under no circumstances may he be released to any state or territory of the United States. The defendant shall remain in custody at all times unless, having been paroled, he is deported. Further, the defendant shall be ineligible for re-entry into the United States, and shall be subject to arrest and imposition of any time remaining on his sentence should he re-enter the United States or its territories. Ahmed contends, and the State concedes, that this is an illegal condition of parole. It is beyond the jurisdiction of a district court to order anyone deported without due process or to absolutely bar re-entry into the United States. Boutilier v. INS (1967), 387 U.S. 118, 87 S.Ct. 1563, 18 L.Ed.2d 661; United States v. Castillo-Burgos (9th Cir.1974), 501 F.2d 217 ( cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1010, 95 S.Ct. 330, 42 L.Ed.2d 284). Ahmed further contends, however, that the imposition of an illegal condition of parole indicates the District Court's inherent racial and cultural prejudice against him. As stated above, such charges cannot be based on mere speculation or conjecture. Ahmed is admittedly not a citizen of this country. He is also, now, a convicted felon and dangerous offender. Under the circumstances, the District Court might well believe that justice and society would be best served by deporting Ahmed after he is paroled. The parole provision is illegal not because it is racist or biased, but because it does not take into consideration Ahmed's right to procedural due process before deportation. Because it is illegal, we hold that the subject parole condition must be stricken. Inclusion of the illegal provision does not, however, indicate inherent judicial bias warranting reversal of Ahmed's convictions.