Pierre v. U.S., No. 75--1579
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER; DYER; GOLDBERG |
| Citation | 525 F.2d 933 |
| Parties | Marie PIERRE et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1579 |
Page 933
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Fifth Circuit.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1976.
Page 934
Eric M. Lieberman, New York City (Michael Krinsky, Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard, Ira Gollobin, New York City; Neal R. Sonnett, Donald I. Bierman, Miami, Fla., of counsel), for petitioners-appellants.
Robert W. Rust, U.S. Atty., C. Wesley G. Currier, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Rex Young, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
DYER, Circuit Judge:
The genesis of this case is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by some 216 Haitian citizens who have been seeking relief from administrative Orders of Exclusion from the United States which were based upon a rejection of their claims of political asylum. In its parlous journey the writ was denied by the district court, on appeal the cause was remanded
Page 935
by this Court, and then remanded by the district court to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for further administrative proceedings which are still under way. The district court subsequently ordered a stay of expulsion of the petitioners pending their exhaustion of administrative remedies and opportunity to seek appellate review thereof. The petitioners-appellants then applied for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Service from refusing to authorize their employment pending final administrative and judicial determination of their initial claim of refugee status pursuant to the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief and denied the application. We agree, although for different reasons, that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the application for temporary injunction and thus affirm.Although appellants mount a broadside attack on the refusal of the district court to grant a preliminary injunction 1 we find it necessary to reach only the question whether, in a suit seeking habeas corpus relief, the court has jurisdiction under its general equity powers to entertain an application for a mandatory injunction to require collateral administrative action independent of, and unrelated to, the issue of the legality of petitioners' custody.
At the outset, we reject the reasoning of the district court for refusing to entertain the application for a preliminary injunction. Our views may be abbreviated because the government properly made no effort on appeal to support the basis of the district court's action. The district court relied on8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1182(a)(14) and 1153(a)(6) which, inter alia, prohibit certain aliens from seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor unless the Secretary of Labor has certified to the Secretary of State that they may so enter, and which establish the percentage of the total number of annual visas to be allotted to qualified immigrants seeking entry to perform skilled and unskilled labor.
The certification and quota systems by their terms do not apply to appellants. They do not seek entry 'for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor;' rather they seek entry as refugees to obtain political asylum based on a well founded fear of persecution in their homeland. The application of § 1182(a)(14) to those seeking political asylum would render the Convention meaningless as a practical matter with respect to those who are determined to have a refugee status since Article...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livas v. Myers, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00422
...that " ‘sole function’ of habeas is to ‘grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody.’ " Id. (quoting Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-936 (5th Cir. 1976) ).However, Respondents move for dismissal because the Court is jurisdictionally barred from reviewing the BOP's discreti......
-
Petgrave v. Aleman, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-34
...in a Habeas Petition The "sole function" of habeas "is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody." Pierre v. United States , 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1976). To that end, "[i]f a favorable determination ... would not automatically entitle [the petitioner] to accelerated rel......
-
Amanullah v. Nelson, Nos. 86-1604
...the legality of the custody. McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U.S. 131, 139, 55 S.Ct. 24, 27, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934); Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir.1976); 2 Gordon & Rosenfield, supra, at Sec. 8.7h. See also Matter of Ghalamsiah, 806 F.2d 68, 72 n. 4 (3d Cir.1986) (habeas ......
-
In re Wright, No. 15–281
...corpus' ” (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) )); see also Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976) (explaining a “suit seeking habeas corpus relief” “cannot be utilized as a base for the review of a refusal to grant colla......
-
Livas v. Myers, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00422
...that " ‘sole function’ of habeas is to ‘grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody.’ " Id. (quoting Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-936 (5th Cir. 1976) ).However, Respondents move for dismissal because the Court is jurisdictionally barred from reviewing the BOP's discreti......
-
Petgrave v. Aleman, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-34
...in a Habeas Petition The "sole function" of habeas "is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody." Pierre v. United States , 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1976). To that end, "[i]f a favorable determination ... would not automatically entitle [the petitioner] to accelerated rel......
-
Amanullah v. Nelson, Nos. 86-1604
...the legality of the custody. McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U.S. 131, 139, 55 S.Ct. 24, 27, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934); Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir.1976); 2 Gordon & Rosenfield, supra, at Sec. 8.7h. See also Matter of Ghalamsiah, 806 F.2d 68, 72 n. 4 (3d Cir.1986) (habeas ......
-
In re Wright, No. 15–281
...corpus' ” (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) )); see also Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976) (explaining a “suit seeking habeas corpus relief” “cannot be utilized as a base for the review of a refusal to grant colla......