Parra-Parra v. Ashcroft

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.