Unpublished Disposition, 934 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
George Boulos NEMER, Petitioner-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATIONSERVICE, Respondent-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 1991.* Decided May 31, 1991.
Before HUG, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
George Boulos Nemer, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.
In 1985, Nemer was convicted of possession with intent to distribute approximately 150 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) & (b) (1) (A). The INS subsequently filed a detainer action letter with prison officials, indicating that Nemer would be subject to deportation proceedings upon his release from federal incarceration. The filing of the detainer resulted in an increase in Nemer's security classification and thus rendered him ineligible to participate in community programs, prison transfers, and furloughs.
Nemer filed this habeas corpus petition seeking release on his own recognizance from INS custody, or that reasonable bail or bond be set so that the INS detainer may be lifted. Although it is not clear whether Nemer is in fact in INS custody for purposes of habeas corpus, see Guti v. INS, 908 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1990), the district court properly determined that Nemer is entitled to no relief. Nemer has no constitutional right to a particular security classification. Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987); see Baumann v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 754 F.2d 841, 844 (9th Cir. 1985) (no constitutional right to work furlough classification). Nor does Nemer have any constitutional right to be housed in a particular prison, Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1986), or to participate in community rehabilitation and treatment programs, see Hernandez, 833 F.2d at 1318; see also Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 1982) (no general constitutional right to rehabilitation).
To the extent Nemer requested relief under the Bail Reform Act, his claim has no merit. The Bail Reform Act applies only to persons awaiting trial, sentencing or a decision on appeal with regard to federal criminal offenses. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142-43. A deportation hearing is civil in nature, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984); United States v. Alderete-Deras, 743 F.2d 645, 647 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, Nemer is not entitled to bail. Finally, the posting of bond pending a deportation hearing is within the discretion of the Attorney General. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (1). Thus, Nemer has no constitutional right to post bond. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is