Dearinger v. Ashcroft

32 F. App'x 950
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 9, 2002·No. No. 01-35321; D.C. No. CV-98-01602-RSL·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

MEMORANDUM **

Vladimir Volkov, by his next friends, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus ordering the Immigration and Naturalization Service to admit him into the United States from the Russian Federation. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Volkov appealed. We review de novo the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.1

Volkov claims that the district court had jurisdiction to issue the writ under Singh v. Waters.2 But Miranda v. Reno3 limited Singh to deportations where the INS procedural violations present “extreme circumstances.” 4 The procedural violations alleged by Volkov do not present “extreme circumstances,” as in Singh. Except in anomalous cases such as Singh, habeas corpus is a writ for getting people out (of custody), not getting in (to the United States). The district court therefore lacked jurisdiction and properly dismissed the petition.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

Dearinger v. Ashcroft, 32 F. App'x 950 (9th Cir. 2002).

32 F. App'x 950 (Dearinger v. Ashcroft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lopez-Galvan v. Garland
S.D. California, 2025
Volkov v. Ashcroft, Attorney General
538 U.S. 962 (Supreme Court, 2003)