Summary
upholding finding that petitioner was danger to community where petitioner was subject to a final order of removal and had pleaded guilty to three prior felonies
Summary of this case from Iturralde-Manosalva v. U.S.Opinion
01 Civ. 2593 (WK).
April 14, 2001.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Petitioner Martin Gomez-Perez ("petitioner") petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that an Immigration Judge ("IJ") illegally deprived him of legal representation at his deportation hearing. Since we determine sua sponte that the petition is frivolous, id. § 2243, we deny it.
In the instant case, the IJ initially informed petitioner on April 24, 2000 of his right to bring a lawyer (at his own expense) to the hearing. Petitioner stated on the record that he statutory rights. However, the case law clearly shows otherwise. Recent cases in this Circuit and in this District have held that an IJ need not grant a third adjournment to permit an alien to retain counsel. Gutierrez v. Reno (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2000) No. 99 Civ. 11036, 2000 WL 1643585, at *1-4; Hidalgo-Disla v. INS (2d Cir. 1995) 52 F.3d 444. In the instant case, petitioner requested a fourth adjournment. This is unacceptable: "If an immigration judge could not proceed with a hearing, after two adjournments, without the alien's express waiver, an alien seeking to stave off deportation would be able to win an infinite number of adjournments, and would be better off appearing without a lawyer than with one." 52 F.3d at 447.
Petitioner also suggests that the IJ should have inquired in more depth about petitioner's progress in obtaining counsel. No legal requirement exists for such solicitude, especially when the judge had adjourned the case three times over the course of over four months to accommodate petitioner's search for appropriate representation.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.