Williams v. Dist Dir INS , 75 F. App'x 893 ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-26-2003
Williams v. Dist Dir INS
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-2443
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Williams v. Dist Dir INS" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 251.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/251
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 2003 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
____________
02-2443
____________
WORGOR WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
ANDREA J. QUARANTILLO, DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR INS
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-00119)
District Judge: The Honorable Katharine S. Hayden
Argued: June 16, 2003
Before: ALITO, ROTH, and HALL,* Circuit Judges
(Filed: September 26, 2003)
____________________
OPINION
____________________
*
Sitting by designation: Cynthia H. Hall, Circuit Judge, U.S.C.A., Ninth Circuit.
Maria Torres, Esq. (Argued)
1594 Metropolitan Avenue #4B
Bronx, New York 10462
Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma (Argued)
Hafetz & Necheles
500 Fifth Avenue
29 th Floor
New York, New York 10110
Counsel for Appellant
Michael P. Lindeman (Argued)
Assistant Director
Christopher C. Fuller
Senior Litigation Counsel
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Section
Washington, DC 20044
Counsel for Appellee
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a District Court order denying a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner, Worgor Williams, a native and citizen of
Ghana, arrived in the United States as stowaway and asserts rights under Article III of the
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, G.A.Res. 39/46, 39th Sess., U.N.G.A.O.R.
Supp. No. 51 at 197, U.N. Doc. A./39/51 (1984). Because we write for the benefit of the
parties, the background of the case is not set out.
2
1. Although the government contends that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the habeas petition, our Court’s recent decision in Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft,
2003 WL 21995303, (3d Cir., Aug. 22, 2003), forecloses that argument.
2. The petitioner contends that he had a constitutional right to due process in the
administrative proceedings and that this right was violated. The respondent argues,
however, that “[a]s an unadmitted alien in immigration proceedings, [Williams had] no
protection from the Constitution . . . .” Respondent’s Br. at 26. Assuming for the sake of
argument that the petitioner had due process rights in the administrative proceedings, we
hold, for essentially the reasons set out in the opinion of the District Court that “all due
process requirements were met.” Dist. Op. at 10. In Chong v. District Director, INS, 264
F.3d 378, 386 (3d Cir. 2001), which concerned removal proceedings against a permanent
resident alien, we stated that due process required that the alien “(1) be entitled to fact
finding based on a record produced before the board and disclosed to her; (2) be allowed
to make arguments on her own behalf; and (3) have the right to an individualized
determination of her interests.” See also Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir.
2001). In this case, the petitioner was given all of those rights. We have considered all of
the petitioner’s arguments, but assuming arguendo that the petitioner possessed due
process rights, all of those rights were observed.
3. We have considered all of the petitioner’s remaining arguments, and find no
ground for reversing the decision of the District Court. We note that both the
3
Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration appeals found that the petitioner had
not satisfied his burden of showing that he is likely to be tortured if returned to Ghana and
that the District Court found that this conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.
See J.A. 20-21, 100, 103-111.
For the reasons set out above, the order of the District Court denying the petition
for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
4