Arana v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
| Decision Date | 18 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2047,81-2047 |
| Parties | Isidoro M. ARANA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. . Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
V. Pinnock Bailey, II, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Peter F. Vaira, Jr., U. S. Atty., Walter S. Batty, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Appellate Sec., Thomas J. McBride, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before ADAMS and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and STERN, District Judge. *
Isidoro M. Arana appeals from a final order of the district court denying his petition for habeas corpus. As an initial matter, we must decide whether to entertain an appeal from an individual, such as Arana, who is subject to an order of deportation but who has hidden his whereabouts from immigration authorities and this Court and has failed to comply with an order and a bench warrant issued by the district court.
The record indicates that Arana was declared deportable by an Immigration Judge in September 1979, and granted the right of voluntary departure, which subsequently was extended until March 6, 1981. On March 20, 1981, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ordered Arana to report for deportation on April 6, 1981. It is unclear from the record whether Arana received notification of this order since, according to the Government, he had moved from his last-known address without informing the INS of his whereabouts, as required by law. At any rate, on April 6, 1981, a petition for habeas corpus was filed by Arana's attorney with the district court seeking a stay of Arana's deportation. In response to Arana's request, a temporary stay of the INS order was issued by the district court on that date so that the district court could consider the petition for habeas. After reviewing the administrative record, the district judge denied the petition for habeas and ordered Arana to report for deportation, since the April 6 date of deportation had now passed. When Arana did not report to the INS, the Government returned to the district court and sought a bench warrant for Arana's arrest, in view of his "fail(ure) to report as ordered by the Court." That same day, May 22, 1981, the district judge granted the Government's motion and ordered that a bench warrant issue for the arrest of Arana.
According to the briefs filed with this Court, to date Arana has neither complied with the district court's order nor has he been located by federal authorities. 1 On In Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970) (per curiam), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an individual who failed to surrender himself to state authorities after his bail had been revoked. In declining to adjudicate the case of a "fugitive from justice," the Court concluded that a person who "escapes from the restraints placed upon him" pursuant to a conviction "disentitles (himself from) call(ing) upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims," id. at 365-66. Following Molinaro, this Court dismissed the appeal of a convicted escapee who remained at large at the time of oral argument on his appeal. Government of Virgin Islands v. James, 621 F.2d 588 (3d Cir. 1980) (per curiam). See also United States v. Swigart, 490 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir. 1973) ().
this appeal, therefore, the Government argues that Arana "should be foreclosed from further pursuing this matter" so long as he refuses to make known his whereabouts. Inasmuch as Arana's counsel has not disputed the fact that Arana cannot now be located, we agree.
We believe that Molinaro, James, and Swigart provide sufficient authorization for dismissal of this appeal. 2 There is nothing in the record, nor in the presentation by counsel for Arana, to indicate that Arana would make himself available to immigration officials were we to entertain his appeal and affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief. Rather than disclosing his whereabouts and, at the same time, applying for a stay of deportation, the appellant apparently has decided to conceal himself from this Court, the district court, and the INS-presumably to appear only if a judgment favorable to his cause is entered. W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Md. Deposit Ins. Fund Corp. v. Billman
...denied, 459 U.S. 1309, 103 S.Ct. 663, 74 L.Ed.2d 588 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., opinion in chambers); Arana v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 673 F.2d 75 (3rd Cir.1982) (denial of habeas corpus affirmed where applicant fled and became object of bench warrant after deportation......
-
Ofosu v. McElroy
...v. INS, 817 F.2d 63 (9th Cir.1986) (dismissing appeal of alien who escaped from federal custody and became fugitive); Arana v. INS, 673 F.2d 75, 76-77 (3d Cir.1982) (dismissing appeal of alien who disregarded court order to report for deportation and could no longer be Ofosu will be deporte......
-
Prevot, In re
...(district court dismissed petition for habeas corpus, litigant went AWOL pending his appeal, appeal dismissed); Arana v. U.S. Immigration & Nat. Serv., 673 F.2d 75 (3d Cir.1982) (dismissing the appeal of the denial of a habeas corpus petition of litigant who had been declared deportable and......
-
Figueroa v. Attorney Gen. U.S.
...opinion [in Molinaro ] suggests that the rule announced there is applicable only in the criminal-law context." Arana v. INS , 673 F.2d 75, 77 n.2 (3d Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, this Circuit – along with every other circuit to consider the issue3 – has applied the doctrine in the ......
-
ELIMINATING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
...the fugitive present to accept the decision of this court, there is no guarantee that our judgment could be executed."). 159 Arana v. INS, 673 F.2d 75, 77 (3d Cir. 1982) (highlighting that petitioner may not make himself available to immigration appeals if he lost); See Nnebedum v. Gonzales......
-
Fugitives in Immigration: a Call for Legislative Guidelines on Disentitlement
...on which disentitlement is to be invoked. See supra notes 49, 57. 64.Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 251 n.24. 65.See, e.g., Arana v. INS, 673 F.2d 75 (3d Cir. 1982). 66. Part IV will discuss why a lack of uniformity among the circuit courts, which may be tolerable in criminal appeals, is not......