Blankson v. Mukasey

261 F. App'x 758
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 2008
Docket07-10219
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 F. App'x 758 (Blankson v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blankson v. Mukasey, 261 F. App'x 758 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Alex Kojo Blankson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 *759 petition on the grounds that his detention by the Department of Homeland Security/Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS) is unconstitutional in light of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).

The district court noted that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) provides that the removal period shall be extended if the alien fails or refuses to make a good faith effort to obtain a travel document or acts to prevent his removal and concluded that Blankson’s own actions and conflicting claims of citizenship hampered the DHS’s ability to effectuate his removal. The district court also found that Blankson failed to show that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.

The district court did not err in denying the petition. Blankson’s frequently changing claims of citizenship hampered the DHS’s ability to effectuate removal and, under § 1231(a)(1)(C), has served to extend the removal period of § 1231(a)(1)(A). See Balogun v. INS, 9 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir.1993). Blankson has failed to show that under the circumstances his continued detention violates his constitutional rights and that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED; Blankson’s motion to enter exhibit lists is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *759 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gonzalez v. Kolitwenzew
S.D. Mississippi, 2020
Zadvydas v. Davis
533 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 F. App'x 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankson-v-mukasey-ca5-2008.