Filed: Dec. 05, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 5, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-30114 Summary Calendar NICO BENN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CV-388 - Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nico Benn appeals the distr
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 5, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-30114 Summary Calendar NICO BENN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CV-388 - Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nico Benn appeals the distri..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 5, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30114
Summary Calendar
NICO BENN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-388
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nico Benn appeals the district court’s denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition which challenged his post-removal-order
detention by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
The district court did not err in denying the petition. Gisbert
v. United States Attorney General,
988 F.2d 1437, 1440 (5th Cir.
1993), amended by
997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1993). Benn’s post-
removal-order detention was authorized under 8 U.S.C.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-30114
-2-
§ 1231(a)(1)(C). Benn’s incomplete and conflicting statements to
the INS hampered the INS’s ability to effectuate removal and
served to extend the removal period of 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(A).
Balogun v. INS,
9 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.