Boz v. United States

3 Citing cases

  1. Boz v. United States

    248 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 34 times
    Explaining in an immigrant's § 2241 case that "a petitioner need not exhaust his administrative remedies where the administrative remedy will not provide relief commensurate with the claim"

    PER CURIAM: The Court vacates its opinion in 228 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2000) and substitutes this opinion in its place. Ivan Boz, an alien, filed a habeas corpus petition in which he claimed that his continued and indefinite detention after a final removal order violated his due process rights.

  2. Ulysse v. Department of Homeland Security

    Case No. 6:03-cv-1048-Orl-31KRS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2003)   Cited 5 times
    Noting purpose of INA "to remove illegal aliens as quickly as possible"

    Federal courts retain jurisdiction to review the decisions and actions of federal agencies through petitions for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314 (2001) (rejecting the government's argument that sections of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 stripped courts of jurisdiction over § 2241 habeas corpus petitions); Zadwdas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001) ("[Section] 2241 habeas corpus proceedings remain available as a forum for statutory and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention."); Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 394 (6th Cir. 2003) (aliens detained by INS can petition for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241): see Chmakov v. Blackman, 266 F.3d 210, 215 (3rd Cir. 2001) (holding that "Congress has preserved the right to habeas review for both criminal and non-criminal aliens."); see also Boz v. United States, 228 F.3d 1290, 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (IIDRIRA does not preclude habeas review of the legality of the length of detention). The St. Cyr Court held that "[a]t its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest."

  3. In re Soliman

    134 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (N.D. Ala. 2001)   Cited 22 times
    Finding that force-feeding a hunger-striking inmate did not violate inmate's First Amendment rights

    Despite the foregoing limitations on judicial review, the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act does not prevent a district court from considering the habeas petition of an alien who is subject to prolonged or indefinite detention pursuant to a final order of removal. Boz v. United States, 228 F.3d 1290, 1292 (11th Cir. 2000). In Boz, the Eleventh Circuit found that the petitioner was not challenging the removal order itself, but only the legality of the prolonged, indefinite detention that resulted from the inability of the INS to effect his removal.