Opinion ID: 8173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Yishai’s Bail Application:

Text: Yishai’s initial habeas petition argued that the immigration law judge incorrectly decided to hold Yishai without bond pending the final determination of his deportability. Since filing that petition, however, Yishai’s deportation order has become final.6 Therefore, we find that the validity of this bond decision is now moot. This court also does not have jurisdiction to address the validity of Yishai’s detention since his deportation has become final.7 Once the INS obtains a final order of deportability against an alien, the Attorney General may again choose to detain the alien without bond pending actual deportation.8 This custody decision is separate from the decision to detain an alien while deportation proceedings are pending.9 As such, it requires separate judicial review.10 Thus, Yishai is now being detained pursuant to a different administrative decision from the one he initially challenged. Yet, Yishai has not sought review of this later custody decision in either the immigration court or the 6 Marciano v. I.N.S., supra, note 2. 7 Yishai filed his appellate brief in this court two weeks after deportation order was final. The brief still clearly appeals the validity of his detention. This court therefore interprets Yishai’s brief as challenging both his earlier detention, and his continued detention pending actual deportation. 8 8 U.S.C. §1252(c). That statute provides in relevant part: When a final order of deportation . . . is made against any alien, the Attorney General shall have a period of six months from the date of such order, . . . within which to effect the alien’s departure form the United States, during which period, at the Attorney General’s discretion, the alien may be detained, released on bond in an amount containing such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe or released on such other condition as the Attorney General may prescribe. Any court of competent jurisdiction shall have authority to review or revise any determination of the Attorney General concerning detention, release on bond, or other release, during such six-month period. . . (emphasis added). 9 Id. 10 Id. 3 district court. This court may not address an issue presented for the first time on appeal.11 Accordingly, we dismiss Yishai’s claims regarding the decisions to hold him without bond. B. Yishai’s Due Process, Double Jeopardy, and Right to Counsel claims: It is undisputed that Yishai has filed three earlier habeas corpus petitions with the U.S. District Court in for the Western District of Louisiana. Yet, when ordered to show cause why he was not able to present the current claims in those earlier petitions, Yishai responded only with allegations that the INS had intercepted his mail and kept him in solitary confinement.120. R e p l y Brief at 1. 130. West of England, 981 F.2d at 749. 14 These allegations, even if true, do not adequately explain why the previous petitions were incomplete. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Yishai’s complaint. As an alternate ground for our holding today, we note that all of Yishai’s remaining claims should be dismissed because they all relate to the merits of his deportation order, a decision that this court has already reviewed.15 A court may not entertain a habeas petition regarding the merits of a deportation order unless it raises new grounds which could not have been entertained on the prior direct appeal of the merits.16 Yishai filed the present petition before filing for direct review of the merits in this court. 17 Therefore, it is impossible for Yishai to have met this requirement. Accordingly, the remaining claims in his petition should be dismissed. 11 West of England Ship Owners Mut. Ins. Ass’n v. American Marine Corp., 981 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1993). 12 Yishai argues for the first time on appeal that his earlier habeas corpus petitions predated his current detention, and were unrelated to his present deportation order. As discussed above, however, this court will not hear an appeal on an issue that was not first raised to the district court. West of England, 981 F.2d at 749. Therefore, we will not address this argument. 15 Marciano v. INS, supra, note 2. 16 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c); Garcia v. Boldin, 691 F. 2d 1172, 1180 (5th Cir. 1982). 17 The present petition was filed on March 14, 1994. Yishai did not file his petition for direct review in this court until May 20, 1994. 4