Ahmed v. INS

Filing 5

ORDER denying request for reconsideration 4 . Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

YASSER AHMED, #123251,
Petitioner,
Case No. 12-CV-13963
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. # 4)
In September 2012, this court dismissed what was docketed by the clerk’s office
as Mr. Ahmed’s immigration habeas corpus petition, for failure to meet basic pleading
requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and because this court has no jurisdiction to
review an order of removal.
Mr. Ahmed then wrote a second letter to the court, requesting reconsideration of
the earlier order “& or advice from the Courts for the proper actions I should take in
order to see results in my situation.” Petitioner (1) asserts that when he pled guilty to a
misdemeanor in 2009, his lawyer advised him that it would not affect his immigration
status; (2) questions why his I-130 petition form was approved in February 2010 if he
was subject to deportation on the basis of the misdemeanor conviction; (3) questions
why, after he missed a court date in December 2011 and was advised he had 180 days
to show cause for his absence, he was pulled over and arrested within that 180 day
period.

-1-

While the court is sympathetic to Mr. Ahmed’s plight, his correspondence does
not affect the court’s earlier determination of this issue. Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the
Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
provides:
[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same
issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication, shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but
also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a
correction thereof.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by
which this court has been misled, the correction of which will result in a different
disposition of this case.
This court does not have jurisdiction over habeas challenges to an order of
removal. Muka v. Baker, 559 F.3d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 2009). As stated in the court’s
initial order, a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals is the sole means
for judicial review of an order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), 1252(b)(9).
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 17, 2013
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
April 17, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Yasser Ahmed #123251, 1170 Michigan Road,
Port Huron,
MI 48060.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-2-