Aristica-Rodriguez

*788 MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner/Appellant Francisco Aristica-Rodriguez (“Aristica-Rodriguez”) appeals the District Court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which alleged that he is being illegally detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). We find that we lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 , and we dismiss the petition.

The parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history of the case. Therefore, we do not repeat them here.

A writ of habeas corpus must “be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ; see also id. § 2242 (requiring that application for writ must allege “the name of the person who has custody over [the applicant] and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known.”). We lack personam jurisdiction over the custodian and, therefore, cannot grant relief if the petition fails to name the detainee’s custodian as the respondent. See Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973).

We have held that the “proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner’s ‘immediate custodian.’ ” Brittingham v.…