Daley v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-31-2008
Daley v. Secretary Homeland
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4266
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Daley v. Secretary Homeland" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1356.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1356
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4266
DEON EARL DALEY,
Appellant
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;
THOMAS V. DURAN
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-01443)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
MARCH 19, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Opinion filed March 31, 2008)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Deon Earl Daley appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his petition
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The procedural history of this case and the details of
Daley’s claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough
order, and need not be discussed at length. Daley, a citizen of Jamaica, filed a § 2241
petition challenging his removal order and his continued detention. The District Court
dismissed the petition. Daley filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d
Cir. 2002). We agree with the District Court that it did not have jurisdiction over Daley’s
challenge to his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).1 As for Daley’s challenge to
his detention, he was still within the presumptively reasonable six-month post-removal
period at the time of the District Court’s order. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701
(2001).
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
affirm the District Court’s October 29, 2007 order. Daley’s motion to dismiss is denied.
1
On January 8, 2008, this Court denied Daley’s petition for review of his removal
order. See Daley v. Attorney Gen., No. 07-3295, 2008 WL 73688 (3d Cir. Jan. 8, 2008).
Thus, the District Court’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, rather than transfer
the matter to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, was entirely appropriate.
2