Jama v. Ashcroft, 04-1127.
Decision Date | 25 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 04-1127.,04-1127. |
Citation | 362 F.3d 1117 |
Parties | Keyse G. JAMA, Appellee, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Jeffrey John Keyes, Kevin M. Magnuson, Briggs & Morgan, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Keyse G. Jama, Minnesota Correctional Facility, Rush City, MN, pro se.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, David J. Kline, Christine A. Bither, Greg D. Mack, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellant.
[PUBLISHED]
The district court's judgment ordering the release of petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is reversed because the district court erred in concluding that "there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Mr. Jama's immigration case, and we believe that the Court will decide the case in a reasonable time and that it would be wrong to conclude that there is no significant likelihood that the government will prevail.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's directive in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), I would affirm the district court's judgment ordering Keyse Jama's release. I therefore respectfully dissent from the panel's order reversing the district court's judgment.
My disagreement with the panel's order is two-fold. First, I have a different view of the impact the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari has on our determination whether Mr. Jama's removal is likely in the "reasonably foreseeable future." Id. It is my understanding the Supreme Court will not hear arguments in Mr. Jama's case until the Court's next term. Thus, a decision on the merits will likely not be issued for at least a year. Mr. Jama has already been in post-removal-order administrative custody since May 2001. Thus, even assuming the Supreme Court ultimately decides against Mr. Jama on the merits and permits his removal, an added delay of more than a year places his removal beyond the reasonably foreseeable future. See id. ().
Second, I stand by my analysis of the merits of Mr. Jama's arguments. See Jama v. INS, 329 F.3d 630, 635-37 (8th Cir.2003) (Bye, J., dissenting) (, )cert. granted, 540 U.S. 1176, 124 S.Ct. 1407, 158 L.Ed.2d 76...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prieto-Romero v. Clark
...533 U.S. at 697, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (explaining that "determination of removability" has an "obvious termination point"); Jama v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1117, 1117 (8th Cir.2004) ("[W]e believe that the Court will decide the [alien's immigration case] in a reasonable time and that it would be wrong......
-
Ali v. Cangemi, 04-2490.
...review of the briefs and case law, including Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001); Jama v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir.2004); Jama v. INS, 329 F.3d 630 (8th Cir.2003), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 1407, 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004); and Ali v. Ashc......
-
Jamal v. Sessions, Case No. 5:18-06015-CV-RK
...to the community, flee if released, or violate conditions of release. Id. This Court recognizes that the Eighth Circuit in Jama v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1117 (2004), cited a portion of Zadvydas as a basis for reversing the district court's judgment which released a petitioner under 28 U.S.C. §......