Kiareldeen v. Reno case brief summary
71 F.Supp.2d 402 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner alien sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention violated the Due Process Clause because it was based on secret, uncorroborated hearsay accusations that he had not had the opportunity to examine or confront. Petitioner also claimed that he had rebutted the accusations, and that his incarceration, which concerned his alleged political associations, were protected under U.S. Constitutional amendment I. Petitioner had been in the country for about ten years, having arrived on a student visa. He had submitted a relative petition to adjust his status to a conditional legal permanent resident when he was detained without bond, apparently as a result of accusations by his ex-wife that he was a terrorist. He was never charged with any crime.
DISCUSSION
The court held that habeas relief was available to petitioner under current immigration law, and that due process was violated by the nondisclosure of evidence. The court ordered relief and the case was remanded.
CONCLUSION
The writ of habeas corpus was granted because petitioner alien's detention and the government's reliance upon secret evidence, and his continued detention based on uncorroborated hearsay accusations he had rebutted, both violated the Due Process Clause, which applied to resident aliens as well as citizens. Reasonable costs and attorney's fees were awarded.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
71 F.Supp.2d 402 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner alien, who was being held in
custody as a possible terrorist, filed an application for habeas
corpus relief under 8 U.S.C.S. § 2241, arguing his continued
detention that was based upon secret, hearsay evidence violated due
process and his freedom to associate under U.S. Constitutional
amendment I.CASE FACTS
Petitioner alien sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention violated the Due Process Clause because it was based on secret, uncorroborated hearsay accusations that he had not had the opportunity to examine or confront. Petitioner also claimed that he had rebutted the accusations, and that his incarceration, which concerned his alleged political associations, were protected under U.S. Constitutional amendment I. Petitioner had been in the country for about ten years, having arrived on a student visa. He had submitted a relative petition to adjust his status to a conditional legal permanent resident when he was detained without bond, apparently as a result of accusations by his ex-wife that he was a terrorist. He was never charged with any crime.
DISCUSSION
The court held that habeas relief was available to petitioner under current immigration law, and that due process was violated by the nondisclosure of evidence. The court ordered relief and the case was remanded.
CONCLUSION
The writ of habeas corpus was granted because petitioner alien's detention and the government's reliance upon secret evidence, and his continued detention based on uncorroborated hearsay accusations he had rebutted, both violated the Due Process Clause, which applied to resident aliens as well as citizens. Reasonable costs and attorney's fees were awarded.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment