D.C. Circuit concludes Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act as amended by REAL ID Act confers on detainee no habeas or due process right to judicial review of conditions in Iraq before being transferred into its custody


D.C. Circuit concludes Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act as amended by REAL ID Act confers on detainee no habeas or due process right to judicial review of conditions in Iraq before being transferred into its custody  
Since 2004 the U.S. military had detained Shawqi Omar, a dual citizen of Jordan and the U.S., in Iraq on the basis of evidence he had participated in al Qaeda’s terrorist activities there. The U.S. government apparently intended to transfer him to the custody of Iraq. In 2005 Omar filed a habeas petition claiming the right to judicial review of conditions in Iraq before being transferred there, and that he had a habeas and due process right not be transferred if (as he alleged) he was likely to be tortured while in Iraqi custody. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court in Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008), concluded that Omar had neither a habeas corpus nor a due process right to “judicial second‑guessing of the Executive’s determination that he was not likely to be tortured in Iraqi custody.” [Slip op. 2]
In his amended habeas petition to the district court, Omar posed both a novel statutory argument—that the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARR), as supplemented by the REAL ID Act of 2005, gave him the right to the judicial review he sought—and a refashioned constitutional argument—that the habeas corpus guarantee, either by itself or in conjunction with the Due Process clause or FARR, entitled him to the review. The district court rejected both arguments, granting the Government’s motion to dismiss.
In affirming the district court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concludes that Omar’s constitutional argument already had been authoritatively addressed and rejected in Munaf, stating: “The Supreme Court has established that there is no freestanding constitutional right for extradition or military transferees to obtain judicial review of conditions in the receiving country before being transferred.” [Slip op. 15] The Appeals Court likens Omar’s status to that of an extradition or military transferee: “Omar is a military detainee captured during war and now facing transfer to the custody of another nation. In addition, because Omar is facing transfer to the custody of another sovereign that has convicted him of a crime, his situation is analogous to that of an extradition transferee—a point Omar himself acknowledges.” [Slip op. 12]
To Omar’s argument that the REAL ID Act, to the extent it amended FARR, violated the Constitution’s guarantee of habeas corpus, the Appeals Court states while FARR does allow aliens in removal proceedings to obtain the type of judicial review Omar seeks, in FARR on its own and, certainly, as supplemented by the REAL ID Act, “Congress has not created such a right for extradition or military transferees such as Omar.” [Slip op. 21] In support, the Court states, “Omar is not subject to a removal order and has not filed—and, as a military transferee, is not eligible to file—a petition for review under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The REAL ID Act thus confirms that Omar possesses no statutory right to judicial review of conditions in the receiving country.” [Slip op. 9‑10] And, despite Omar’s argument to the contrary, the Court concludes, “the fact that Congress, in the FARR Act, created such a right for immigration transferees does not raise a constitutional problem simply because Congress did not also extend the right to extradition and military transferees.” [Slip op. 20]
In his Concurrence, Judge Griffith provides a spirited rebuke of the majority’s jurisdictional stance:
“Our quarrel over jurisdiction stems from my belief that the FARR Act ‘trigger[s] constitutional habeas’ by giving Omar a colorable claim that his transfer to Iraqi authorities would be unlawful¼.When an American citizen is in U.S. custody, the Constitution’s guarantee of habeas corpus entitles him to assert any claim that his detention or transfer is unlawful. Because Congress may not deprive Omar of access to the courts without suspending the writ or repealing the statutory basis for his claim, neither of which it has done here, we must consider his argument on the merits.” [22] Judge Griffith adds, “[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly held that only the clearest of statements from Congress should be read as repealing our habeas jurisdiction, see Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003)¼.Section 2242(d) of the FARR Act, which the majority suggests strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear Omar’s claim, does not speak with the required clarity. Although it leaves no doubt that the FARR Act does not itself ‘provid[e] any court jurisdiction’ to hear claims outside the immigration context, it just as plainly leaves undisturbed our jurisdiction to hear FARR Act claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [federal habeas statute]. A plurality of the circuits have reached the same conclusion.” [Slip op. 23]
Citation: Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
 
***
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services to both businesses and individuals. The law firm is uniquely qualified to manage the most contentious and unusual immigration needs. Swift resolution of immigration-related issues is integral to a client’s ability to conduct business or reach their personal goals in the United States. Located in Miami and Clewiston, the firm’s offices provide corporate and individual clients of foreign nationality with temporary work permits for the U.S., green card petitions, criminal waivers and representation in removal proceedings cases. With over a decade of experience, the law firm provides clients with the confidence that their cases will be handled by an expert who understands their needs and how to obtain their goals. Although the majority of the law firm’s clients live in Florida, it represents people from all over the United States and several foreign countries.

Magdalena Cuprys, Immigration Attorney, Blog

Florida immigration attorney Magdalena Cuprys obtains release on reduced bond for detained Bangladesh citizen who has a pending “battered spouse” petition

Magdalena Cuprys, Esq., Immigration Lawyer, Florida Upon Motion for Bond Redetermination, Immigration Court in Florida releases cli...

Recent Posts