Opinion ID: 73431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mejia’s Contentions

Text: Mejia’s petitions for habeas relief focus on the collateral effect of his unconstitutional drug conviction on his immigration status. According to Mejia, the Florida courts have deemed his conviction “unconstitutional” because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Mejia contends that, although the conviction has been vacated, the conviction continues to cause adverse consequences to his immigration status. It is important to note, however, that Mejia is currently facing deportation for overstaying his student visa - not for his drug conviction. Therefore, Mejia’s contentions necessarily focus on only his argument that, except for the cocaine 11 conviction, he would have been eligible for a suspension of deportation. According to Mejia, his unconstitutional conviction continues to prevent him from being considered for a suspension of deportation. Through his petition for habeas relief, Mejia seeks judicial review to remedy this alleged collateral effect of a constitutional violation, which he contends constitutes a deprivation of due process.3 As noted above, the district court dismissed Mejia’s petition noting that Mejia was attempting to reopen his final 1994 deportation order through habeas. The district court observed that a motion to reopen deportation proceedings must be filed within certain time periods and that the immigration judge had refused to consider Mejia’s motion to reopen because it was not timely filed. Accordingly, the district court refused to order the immigration judge to consider an untimely motion. Similarly, on November 27, 1998, the BIA also denied Mejia’s motion to reopen concluding that Mejia had not sought to reopen, in a timely fashion, his deportation proceedings, which became final in 1994. The common theme of these decisions is, in effect, that immigration proceedings, like judicial proceedings, 3 Mejia’s claims exclusively focus on his application for suspension of deportation, and he does not challenge the validity of the grounds for deportation that the BIA affirmed in its 1994 order. 12 must be timely in order to ensure some degree of finality to the process. Nevertheless, we do not address the merits of the district court’s decision because we find that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mejia’s § 2241 petition.