Anthony Chukwuma Emejulu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 989 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Anthony Chukwuma Emejulu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 989 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2000 · …that the inundated district and magistrate judges of the western district of louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the oakdale facility as a result of lengthy delays in processing detainees for deportation at p. 772 ✓ Topic ↗
25 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: El Hajjaoui v. Ashcroft (ca5, 2004-05-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) El Hajjaoui v. Ashcroft
5th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1) (petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date *244 of the final order of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1) (a court may review a final order of removal only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies as of right); Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 771 (5th Cir.1993) (noting that this court would not assume original jurisdiction over habeas corpus claim).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Julio E. Roman v. John Ashcroft (6×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
The district court reasoned that because Roman was incarcerated in a facility in the Western District of Louisiana with a known backlog of habeas corpus petitions, Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993), there was a risk that “Roman might be removed from the United States before his petition could be heard on the merits.” Roman I, 162 F.Supp.2d at 763 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roman v. Ashcroft (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
The district court reasoned that director who has ‘day-to-day control’ [over a petitioner] is because Roman was incarcerated in a facility in the Western merely an agent of the Attorney General, who has the District of Louisiana with a known backlog of habeas corpus statutorily authorized power over aliens’ custody and petitions, Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir. 1993), release.” See Arias-Agramonte v. Comm’r of INS, No. 00 there was a risk that “Roman might be removed from the Civ. 2412(RWS), 2000 WL 1617999 , at *7 (S.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roman v. Ashcroft
N.D. Ohio · 2001 · confidence medium
The impetus for the New York cases that have allowed petitions naming the Attorney General as respondent in circumstances similar to the circumstances of the instant case is the Fifth Circuit’s observation in Emejulu v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam): We are satisfied that the inundated district and magistrate judges of the Western District of Louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habe-as petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility as a result of the lengthy delays in processing the detainees for deportation .... [T]h…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vasquez v. Reno
1st Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
This perception is not pulled out of thin air: the Fifth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Louisiana and, hence, over FDC-Oakdale) noted a few years ago, albeit in a different context, that the “atypical and unanticipated volume of habeas petitions ... is beyond *694 the capability of the district court to process in a timely fashion.” Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Okongwu v. Reno
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Judicial Complaint, In Re:
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
In considering the third factor, the observations of the Fifth Circuit “that the inundated district and magistrate judges of the Western District of Louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility as a result of lengthy delays in processing detainees for deportation” but that the “atypical and unanticipated volume of habeas petitions . . . is beyond the capability of the district court to 10 process in a timely fashion.” Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir. 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Judicial Complaint, In Re:
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
In considering the third factor, the observations of the Fifth Circuit "that the inundated district and magistrate judges of the Western District of Louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility as a result of lengthy delays in processing detainees for deportation" but that the "atypical and unanticipated volume of habeas petitions ... is beyond the capability of the district court to process in a timely fashion." Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vasquez v. Reno
D. Mass. · 2000 · confidence medium
According to the Fifth Circuit, “the district and magistrate judges are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility,” however, “the atypical and unanticipated volume ... is beyond the capability of the district court to process in a timely fashion.” Emejulu v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henderson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
2d Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
As the Fifth Circuit has observed, “the inundated district and magistrate judges of the Western District of Louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility as a result of the lengthy delays in processing detainees for deportation,” and the “atypical and unan-tieipated volume of habeas corpus petitions ... is beyond the capability of the district court to process in a timely fashion.” Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Franklin Henderson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Saul Navas v. Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States, Engin Yesil v. Janet Reno, Attorney General Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Immigration and Naturalization Service John B.Z. Caplinger, District Director Nancy Hooks, Officer in Charge, Guillermo Mojica v. Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States, Saul Navas v. Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States
2d Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
As the Fifth Circuit has observed, "the inundated district and magistrate judges of the Western District of Louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility as a result of the lengthy delays in processing detainees for deportation," and the "atypical and unanticipated volume of habeas corpus petitions ... is beyond the capability of the district court to process in a timely fashion." Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993). 103 The government, however, counters by asserting that, if we permitted suits against the Attorney…
discussed Cited "see" Valdivia v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
D.N.J. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993) (remarking that “the innundated district and magistrate judges of the Western District of Louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility”).
discussed Cited "see" Iheme v. Reno (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Emejulu v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 989 F.2d 771 (5th Cir.1993) (“[T]he administrative delays in processing deportations produces an atypical and unanticipated volume of habeas corpus petitions that is beyond the capability of the district court [for the Western District of Louisiana] to process in a timely fashion.” Id. at 772 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Luis L. Armentero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (noting that “administrative delays in processing deportations” *1070 at the Oakdale INS facility “produce an atypical and unanticipated volume of habe-as petitions that is beyond the capability of the district court [for the Western District of Louisiana] to process in a timely fashion”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Martina Rodriguez v. United States
2d Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771 (5th Cir.1993) (noting that congressional debates concerning § 1252(i) criticized INS delays, quoting Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1106 (5th Cir.1992)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony Chukwuma EMEJULU, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
92-5162.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 15, 1993.
989 F.2d 771
1993 WL 116084
Anthony Chukwuma Emejulu, Oakdale, LA, pro se., William Barr, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Bom-bough, Anthony W. Norwood, Robert Kendall, Jr., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, John B.Z. Caplinger, DD, INS, New Orleans, LA, for respondent.
King, Davis, Wiener.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s request for habeas corpus be and is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 22(a).

Petitioner Anthony Chukwuma Emejulu, a citizen and native of Nigeria, is a permanent resident alien who was ordered deported by the INS in February 1992. He was • found deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii) for convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude — specifically, he was convicted of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1342 — and is now detained at the Federal Detention Center in Oakdale, Louisiana, awaiting deportation.

Emejulu styles his claim to this court as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum. He first asserts that the $20,000 bond set by the Immigration Judge is “exorbitant” and that, even though Petitioner did not appeal that determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals, we should grant him relief by reducing his bond on habeas review. As the government points out in its response, however, we are without jurisdiction to address this issue. See Young v. United States Dep’t of Justice, INS, 759 F.2d 450, 457 (5th Cir.1985).

More importantly, Emejulu asserts that we should consider the substance of his habeas petition as a matter of original jurisdiction. He notes that 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) authorizes any judge of this circuit to grant him habeas relief even though he has not initiated his habeas petition in a federal district court. Citing the histories of several other similarly situated detainees’ petitions for habeas relief, which purportedly have been long pending in the Western District of Louisiana, Emejulu argues that filing a petition in that district court does not offer him a realistic possibil[*772] ity of relief, given the delay he is sure to experience in light- of those experienced by his comrades. [1]

We are satisfied that the inundated district and magistrate judges of the Western District of Louisiana are toiling long and hard to process the torrent of habeas petitions flowing from the Oakdale facility as a result of the lengthy delays in processing the detainees for deportation. Although we sympathize with Emejulu (and his fellow detainees in that facility), we cannot allow him to play judicial leapfrog, bypassing the district court and turning our court into a factfinding body, simply because the administrative delays in processing deportations produces an atypical and unanticipated volume of habeas petitions that is beyond the capability of the district court to process in a timely fashion.

1

. We recognize that the Attorney General has broad discretion in processing the deportations . of aliens, but we are at a loss to understand the delays concerning the detainees at Oakdale. , As we recognized recently in our opinion in Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104 (5th Cir.1992) (concerning a prisoner trying to force the INS to deport him while he was still serving his time in'prison), "the.principal thrust of [much of the legislation in this area] was to alleviate the serious problems of prison overcrowding and government expenditures. Specifically, the congressional debates targeted and criticized the INS practice of waiting until a convicted alien had served his sentence before commencing deportation proceedings.” Id. at 1106 (footnotes omitted) (citing the legislative history of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(i)). In the instant case (and in the cases of many of the detainees at Oakdale), the alien was (1) convicted of the kind of crime that made him deportable, (2) nevertheless served his entire prison sentence, (3) was then shipped to the federal holding center at Oak-dale, (4) had a deportability hearing in which he was found deportable, and (5) languishes in Oakdale awaiting deportation. It appears to us that such lengthy delays have caused considerable expenditures of the very tax dollars that Congress was concerned about when it passed much of the subject legislation (not to mention the de facto extension of prison time beyond that for' which such detainees have been sentenced). Compounding the expenditures that Congress was concerned with is the expense being borne by the Western District of Louisiana in processing the flood of habeas petitions being filed by the detainees who, by any fair reading of the statute, should long since have been deported. Although we have no desire to administer the deportation of aliens (or to hear again the stereotypical response blaming budget constraints and personnel shortages), we believe that the INS should take immediate steps to expedite the process and clean out the deportation backlog, or explain satisfactorily why it has not or cannot.