Filed: Aug. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-10227 _ EMILYN PROCTOR, Petitioner-Appellant, VERSUS IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM HARRINGTON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DALLAS DISTRICT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondents-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:98-CV-2770-D) _ August 19,
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-10227 _ EMILYN PROCTOR, Petitioner-Appellant, VERSUS IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM HARRINGTON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DALLAS DISTRICT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondents-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:98-CV-2770-D) _ August 19, 1..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
No. 99-10227
___________________________
EMILYN PROCTOR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM HARRINGTON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF
THE DALLAS DISTRICT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE; AND JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondents-Appellees.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:98-CV-2770-D)
___________________________________________________
August 19, 1999
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in the district court
to challenge her deportation order on grounds that the BIA’s denial
of her motion to re-open her deportation proceeding deprived her of
due process. Petitioner argued to the district court that because
she was under a deportation order she met the “in custody”
requirement to file a petition for habeas corpus. We agree with
the district court that the outstanding deportation order against
Proctor did not render her “in custody.” The district court
correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Maleng v. Cook,
490 U.S. 488,
109 S. Ct. 1923,
104 L. Ed. 2d 540
(1989); Marcello v. INS,
634 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1981).
2