Parra-Parra v. Ashcroft ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                          United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   April 8, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-30992
    Summary Calendar
    RODOLFO PARRA-PARRA,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 03-CV-400
    --------------------
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Rodolfo Parra-Parra, alien # A23-223-289, appeals the
    district court’s denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     habeas petition
    challenging the right of the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service (INS) to detain him indefinitely in light of the Supreme
    Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 
    533 U.S. 678
     (2001).         Parra-
    Parra is an excludable alien who is a Cuban national.
    Citing Xi v. INS, 
    298 F.3d 832
     (9th Cir. 2002), Parra-Parra
    argues that the rationale of the Supreme Court’s decision in
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30992
    -2-
    Zadvydas extends to inadmissible aliens.    In his reply brief, he
    argues that this case should be held because the Supreme Court
    has granted certiorari in two cases, United States v. Benitez,
    
    310 F.3d 1221
     (9th Cir. 2002), cert. granted, 
    124 S. Ct. 921
    (2003), and Benitez v. Wallis, 
    337 F.3d 1289
     (11th Cir. 2003),
    cert. granted, 
    124 S. Ct. 1143
     (2004).     The Ninth Circuit Benitez
    decision in no way deals with the issues on appeal.
    Parra-Parra’s argument that Zadvydas should apply equally to
    excludable aliens like himself is foreclosed by this court’s
    decision in Rios v. INS, 
    324 F.3d 296
    , 296 (5th Cir. 2003).
    Instead, this court’s holding in Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 
    988 F.2d 1437
    , 1440-47 (5th Cir.), amended by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty.
    Gen., 
    997 F.2d 1122
     (5th Cir. 1993), that there are no time
    limits on the detention of excluded aliens who have been denied
    entry, governs Parra-Parra’s petition.     See Rios, 
    324 F.3d at 296
    .    This court is in no way bound by the decisions of other
    circuits, United States v. Dawson, 
    576 F.2d 656
    , 659 (5th Cir.
    1978), and a panel of this court may not overrule or ignore a
    prior panel decision.    United States v. Ruiz, 
    180 F.3d 675
    , 676
    (5th Cir. 1999).    Even though the Supreme Court has granted
    certiorari in the Eleventh Circuit Benitez decision, we continue
    to follow our own binding precedent.     See Wicker v. McCotter, 
    798 F.2d 155
    , 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).    Thus, the district court did
    not err in deciding that Parra-Parra’s continued detention did
    No. 03-30992
    -3-
    not violate his constitutional rights.     See Rios, 
    324 F.3d at 296
    .
    Parra-Parra also argues that he has been in INS custody
    since 1996 and that there is nothing in the record to show that
    he has been provided with due process, i.e., an initial review
    under 
    8 C.F.R. § 212.12
     within three months of the revocation of
    his parole and annual reviews thereafter.    However, he concedes
    that he has had at least four interviews with the Cuban Review
    Panel, and he does not argue that he did not receive the
    requisite reviews.    His conclusory allegations are insufficient
    to state a constitutional claim.    See Beazley v. Johnson, 
    242 F.3d 248
    , 270 (5th Cir. 2001).    His argument that the district
    court should have ordered the Government to respond to his
    allegation that he may not have received the periodic reviews
    provided by law also fails.    See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2243
    .   Accordingly,
    the judgment of the district court denying Parra-Parra’s 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition is AFFIRMED.