Opinion ID: 753623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Habeas Petition (Appeal 97-1360)

Text: 7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) allows the Attorney General in his discretion to parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest. Although Nana challenges the reasons supporting District Director Greene's denial of Nana's parole request, we 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, 971 F.2d at 518. Because District Director Greene provided facially legitimate reasons for denying Nana's parole request supported by a factual basis, i.e. the undisputed fact that Nana had been convicted of a sexual crime and that Nana posed a risk of flight given his previous departure from the United States, the district court properly denied Nana's habeas petition. Nana also argues on appeal that his release on parole would serve the public interest because he is a witness with material evidence in a pending judicial proceeding. Because Nana did not raise this argument either before the district court or the Board of Immigration Appeals, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the issue on appeal. 3 See Rivera-Zurita v. I.N.S., 946 F.2d 118, 120 n. 2 (10th Cir.1991). As a result, we find Nana's appeal to be without merit and not in good faith. Therefore, we deny Nana's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).