Okpoju v. Ridge

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 20, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11145
Summary Calendar
AMALI THOMAS OKPOJU,
Petitioner-
Appellant,
versus
TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY of the DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, MICHAEL J. GARCIA, Assistant
Secretary for the BICE, ANNE ESTRADA, District
Director for the BICE,
Respondents-
Appellees.
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CV-1233-BD
----------------------------------------------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Amali Thomas Okpoju, immigration detainee # A74-699-170, appeals the district court’s
judgment dismissing in part and denying in part his application for writ of habeas corpus, which
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
sought review of the immigration judge’s (IJ) bond determination, his continued post removal
detention, and the denial of his asylum application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Because Okpoju’s removal order has beco me final, the IJ no longer has the authority to
determine the amount of his bond and the district court correctly dismissed Okpoju’s claims related
to his bond determination as moot. See United States ex rel. Spinella v. Savoretti, 201 F.2d 364, 364
(5th Cir. 1953). The district court properly denied Okpoju’s claim regarding his continued detention
as premature because, at the time of the district court’s ruling, Okpoju had not yet been in custody
longer than the presumptively reasonable six-month post removal order period. See Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
Okpoju’s challenge to the IJ’s credibility determinations and interpretation of the evidence are
not of constitutional magnitude so as to warrant habeas relief. See Toscano-Gil v. Trominski, 210
F.3d 470, 473-74 (5th Cir. 2000); United States ex rel. Tisi v. Tod, 264 U.S. 131, 134 (1924).
Okpoju’s request that we remand for consideration of his I-130 application is raised for the
first time on appeal and we will not consider it. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d
339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Okpoju’s motion for stay of his removal
pending the outcome of his appeal is DENIED as moot.
-2-