Hose

Hose v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good Law
141 F.3d 932·98 Daily Journal DAR 3657·1998 WL 164572·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7152·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2640
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 10, 1998No. 97-15789California2,049 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

Tareila Tagalicud Hose, a citizen of the Philippines, was ordered excluded from the United States because she did not have a valid visa. The order excluding Hose became final on April 25, 1997 when the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal. On May 1, 1997, Hose petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging procedural and constitutional claims. On May 2, 1997 the district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, as amended Pub.L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3657 (1996), effective April 1, 1997, removed the district court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review exclusion orders. Hose now appeals, contending the district court did have jurisdiction pursuant to both the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . We agree with the district court and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS

On January 31, 1993, Hose attempted to enter the United States at Honolulu International Airport. An officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) approved Hose’s visa…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.