George Thompson v. Eric Holder, et al

Filing 920100324

Case: 09-30557

Document: 00511061139

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/24/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 09-30557 Summary Calendar March 24, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

GEORGE ERNEST THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; MICHAEL CHERTOFF; MICHAEL GARCIA; CHRISTINE DAVIS; GEORGE LUND, III; J P YOUNG, Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09-CV-154

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* George Ernest Thompson, A42 954 981, is a native and citizen of Ghana. After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an order of removal, Thompson filed a petition for review. Thompson v. Holder, No. 08-60199. We granted the Government's request to stay that case, pending our decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Mukasey, No. 07-61006, and further granted Thompson's request for a stay of removal. While his petition for review was pending,

Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4.

*

Case: 09-30557

Document: 00511061139 Page: 2 No. 09-30557

Date Filed: 03/24/2010

Thompson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the district court challenging his continued detention. Thompson now appeals from the district court's denial of his § 2241 petition. The district court found that Thompson's continued detention was not of an unconstitutionally indefinite duration and that his removal was reasonably foreseeable. Thompson's detention is neither indefinite nor potentially

permanent as there is a certain end point to the proceedings related to his pending petition for review and as it appears reasonably likely that he will be removed in the foreseeable future if his petition is denied. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 529-31 (2003). Other than his own conclusory statements, Thompson has presented no evidence to suggest otherwise. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED.

2