Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

.< ,_ ,_ Case 3:03-cv-00957-WWE Document 17 Filed 06/01 /2004 Page 1 of 3 M
- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F E L g 1
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT H
l 211011 JUN-; p 2,32
JERMAINE MURRAY, :
Petitioner, : *?iS1TRiCT COURT
; i"’*"****EP0iii; UG?`·}.*~i i
vs. : Civil N0. 3:03CV957(WWE)
I JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity :
as Attorney General of the United States; and : I
· I
p EDUARDO AGUIRRE, in his official : i
[ capacity as Acting Director ofthe Bureau of : ,
r Citizenship and Immigration Services, : May 21, 2004
t Respondents. : L
PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF 1 E
In their response to petitioner’s habeas petition, respondents’ only substantive argument i
is that in removal cases courts should limit the application of the doctrine of resjudicata to
those cases where the respondent is a United States citizen. Respondents attempt to distinguish
j Medina v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 993 F.2d 499 (5*** Cir. 1993)* from the instant
case, suggesting that the respondent’s status as a US citizen in Medina was the basis for the
court’s decision. In doing so, they quote a passage from the Medina decision which addresses
Ii the value of US citizenship (Respondents Response to Habeas Petition at 5). However, the
Medina court’s discussion of citizenship is not in the context of the application of resjudicata;
_ rather the discussion relates to the court’s recognition that removal proceedings will not lie where
* Petitioner certainly concedes that Medina v. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
993 F.2d 499,_reh ’g denied, 1 F.3d 315 (5*** Circuit 1993), the principle case relied upon by
petitioner, is not binding on this court. Courts reviewing BIA decisions apply their own circuit’s
law, even if the decision, as here, is made in accordance with the law of other circuits. Rosendo-
Ramirez, 32 F.3d 1085, 1092 (7*** Cir. 1994). Petitioner has found no second circuit case law
relevant to the issue presented here. _;;~»
.r>“>
- rf}
.» .·.·’ ;1
—·~~· ;
.
».... 2
.

1
I nw - Case 3:03-cv-00957-WWE Document 17 Filed 06/O1/2004 Page 2 of 3 I
1
the respondent is "i`ormal1y" recognized as a US citizen or is in possession of a US passport. 2 [ci
` I
at 503. In denying the 1NS’s Petition for Rehearing in Medina, the Fifth Circuit made it clear that I
its decision in Medina was generally applicable in immigration cases: I
Few legal doctrines are more intrinsic or necessary in our system than res judicata. That I
doctrine, which provides that a valid and tinal judgement precludes a second suit between
_ the same parties on the same claim or any part thereot] ensures that litigation will come to I
an end. Were we to accept the INS’s arguments, we would carve out a large exception to
this venerable doctrine, one that would allow the agency to eschew direct appeals - -
either inadvertently, through error, or consciously as a strategic decision — - then, years -
later, collaterally attack decisions of immigration judges. The INS presents no persuasive I
argument orautbority to convince us to take such a drastic step. I
1
Medina, 1 F.3d 312, 313-14 ( 5“‘ Cir. 1993). I
Respectfully submitt • I
sf 1
Carroll L. Lucht
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
P. O. Box 209090
New Haven, CT 06520-9090
(203) 432-4800 I
Federal Bar Number ct04360
l
i
J
2 I
2 Courts citing Medina have not limited the holding in Medina to cases involving US
citizens. (Se; 2. g., Delgrado v. Ashcroft, 184 F. Supp. 2d 227 (N .D. N.Y. 2002), rzjfm 'at 2003
WL 1913508 (2d Cir. N.Y. ,Apr. 17, 2003).

` ' ’ Case 3:03-cv-00957-WWE Document 17 Filed 06/O1/2004 Page 3 of 3 `
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the 21st day of May, 2004, the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply Brief was duly served
upon defendants by mailing a copy thereof by first class mail to: T ‘
l
Lisa E. Perkins, AUSA
Office of United States Attorney l
District of Connecticut I
450 Main Street, Room 328 .
Hartford, CT 06103
Carroll L. Lucht
r I
l
l
a
——-—L············—1—·j—-·