Court Opinion

ID: 18721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:17:56+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:23.483119
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                          ___________________________

                                  No. 99-10227
                          ___________________________

                                EMILYN PROCTOR,

                                                       Petitioner-Appellant,

                                     VERSUS

 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM HARRINGTON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF
    THE DALLAS DISTRICT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
 SERVICE; AND JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

                                                      Respondents-Appellees.

          ___________________________________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Texas
                             (3:98-CV-2770-D)
            ___________________________________________________

                                August 19, 1999

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in the district court

to challenge her deportation order on grounds that the BIA’s denial

of her motion to re-open her deportation proceeding deprived her of

due process.     Petitioner argued to the district court that because

she   was    under   a    deportation   order   she   met    the   “in   custody”

requirement to file a petition for habeas corpus.                  We agree with

the district court that the outstanding deportation order against

Proctor did not render her “in custody.”                    The district court

correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.                   See

      *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 109 S. Ct. 1923, 104 L. Ed. 2d 540

(1989); Marcello v. INS, 634 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1981).

                                2