In Re: Angel-Z

7 F.3d 222, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32365, 1993 WL 375713
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 1993
Docket93-8039
StatusUnpublished

This text of 7 F.3d 222 (In Re: Angel-Z) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Angel-Z, 7 F.3d 222, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32365, 1993 WL 375713 (4th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

7 F.3d 222

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
In Re: ANGEL-Z, Petitioner.

No. 93-8039.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 20, 1993.
Decided: September 23, 1993.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Nicholas Angel-Z, Petitioner Pro Se.

PETITION DENIED.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Nicholas Angel-Z, an incarcerated alien, filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) to deport him immediately. Angel-Z contends that the INS is required to "begin any deportation proceedings as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(i) (West Supp. 1993). He fails to allege, however, that deportation proceedings, as opposed to actual deportation, have not begun.

"An alien sentenced to imprisonment shall not be deported until such imprisonment has been terminated by the release of the alien from confinement." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(h) (West Supp. 1993). See Rodriguez v. United States, 994 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1993); Perez v. INS, United States Dep't of Justice, 979 F.2d 299 (3d Cir. 1992).

Therefore, Angel-Z failed to show that he has a clear right to be deported immediately and that the writ should issue. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DENIED

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 F.3d 222, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32365, 1993 WL 375713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-angel-z-ca4-1993.