Filed: Aug. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2020
Summary: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIJAYAKUMAR THURAISSIGIAM, No. 18-55313 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:18 cv-0135 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND AJB SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ORDER SERVICES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of DHS; WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; MARK A. MORGAN, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP; THOMAS HOMAN; KENNE
Summary: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIJAYAKUMAR THURAISSIGIAM, No. 18-55313 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:18 cv-0135 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND AJB SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ORDER SERVICES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of DHS; WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; MARK A. MORGAN, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP; THOMAS HOMAN; KENNET..
More
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIJAYAKUMAR THURAISSIGIAM, No. 18-55313
Petitioner-Appellant,
D.C. No.
v.
3:18 cv-0135
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND AJB
SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION; U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ORDER
SERVICES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; CHAD F.
WOLF, Acting Secretary of DHS;
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney
General; MARK A. MORGAN, Senior
Official Performing the Duties of the
Commissioner of CBP; THOMAS
HOMAN; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI,
Senior Official Performing the
Duties of the Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration
Services; PETE FLORES, San Diego
Field Director, CBP; GREGORY
ARCHAMBEAULT, San Diego Field
Office Director, ICE; FRED
FIGUEROA, Warden, Otay Mesa
Detention Center,
Respondents-Appellees.
2 THURAISSIGIAM V. USDHS
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States
Filed August 12, 2020
Before: A. Wallace Tashima, M. Margaret McKeown,
and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
Order
ORDER
In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court of
the United States, “remand[ing] the case with directions that
the application for habeas corpus be dismissed,” United
States v. Thuraissigiam,
140 S. Ct. 1959, 1983 (2020), the
judgment of the district court, which dismissed with prejudice
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Thuraissigiam v. U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
287 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 1083 (S.D.
Cal. 2018), is
AFFIRMED.