Ngugi v. Ashcroft

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 28 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SAMUEL NJOROGE NGUGI,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 03-3320
(D.C. No. 02-CV-3226-RDR)
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General; (D. Kan.)
MICHAEL HESTON, District
Director; JAMES ZIGLAR,
Commissioner, INS,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges, and KANE , ** Senior
District Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
The Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
In April 2002, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily
affirmed the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Kansas
City, Missouri (INS) 1
ordering that petitioner, Kenyan native Samuel Njoroge
Ngugi, be removed from this country. Mr. Ngugi did not file a petition for review
of that decision. Two days before Mr. Ngugi was due to report to the INS in
Kansas City, Missouri, for deportation, he filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the federal district court for the district
of Kansas. 2
The § 2241 petition stated that Mr. Ngugi’s motion to reopen his appeal of
the removal order and his motion for stay of deportation were pending before the
BIA. Mr. Ngugi asked the district court for a stay of deportation and “to be at
liberty” pending exhaustion of his administrative remedies because, according to
him, the threatened arrest and detention by the INS violated his right to due
1
On March 1, 2003, the INS ceased to exist as an agency within the
Department of Justice. Its enforcement functions were transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security. See Homeland Security Act of 2002,
Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). Because the majority of the events
at issue here predate that reorganization, we continue to refer to the INS in this
order and judgment.
2
Mr. Ngugi was represented by counsel at all times during these § 2241
proceedings.
-2-
process. R. Vol. I at 8. He further indicated that a stay would permit him to file
a claim for asylum and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
As a second ground for relief, petitioner alleged that, if the government was not
stayed from deporting him, it would be violating his right to file an asylum claim
and for CAT relief. The government moved to dismiss the petition.
While this case was pending in the district court, the BIA denied not only
one but two separate motions from Mr. Ngugi seeking to reopen. Id. at 70, 218.
In the latter order, the BIA determined the Mr. Ngugi had not made out a prima
facie case for asylum eligibility, for withholding of deportation, or for protection
under the CAT. Id. at 218.
After the BIA’s second refusal to reopen Mr. Ngugi’s case, the government
renewed its motion to dismiss the § 2241 petition. In opposing dismissal,
Mr. Ngugi argued that the district court had jurisdiction to review the denial of
his asylum application pursuant to its habeas corpus powers. He further requested
ten days in which to amend his § 2241 petition based on changes in Kenya and on
the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.
The district court dismissed the petition. With regard to Mr. Ngugi’s
petition for stay of deportation pending resolution of his administrative appeals,
the court noted that the BIA had denied the last motion to reopen and concluded
that petitioner’s due process challenge was moot.
-3-
As for Mr. Ngugi’s new assertion made in his response brief to the
government’s renewed motion to dismiss that the district court had jurisdiction to
review the denial of his asylum claim, that court concluded that the court of
appeals was the appropriate court to review such a denial and refused to “retain
this action on the petitioner’s new argument that the denial of asylum is
reviewable in this forum.” Id. at 227.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have conducted a de
novo review of the district court’s dismissal of this § 2241 petition, see Patterson
v. Knowles , 162 F.3d 574, 575 (10th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.
We agree with the district court that petitioner’s application for stay
pending resolution of his administrative appeals was moot. The § 2241 petition
requested a stay of deportation based only on the perceived right to file for
asylum and for CAT relief and a due process right to exhaust administrative
remedies. When Mr. Ngugi was allowed to file for asylum and CAT relief and to
complete the administrative process, there was no longer any basis upon which
the district court could grant the § 2241 petition.
As for review of the denial of asylum, we further agree that dismissal of
that tardily-raised claim was also appropriate. Initially, we note that the § 2241
petition here did not present any claim regarding denial of asylum, nor could it
since the petition pre-dated the asylum decision. Although Mr. Ngugi requested
-4-
leave to amend his petition, no such leave was apparently ever granted and no
amendment proffered. The propriety of the removal order, the denial of the
motions to reopen, and the decision to deny asylum were never properly before
the district court.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-5-