Clement C. Nwabueze, Petitioner-appellant, v. Richard C. Smith, District Director, Ins, Defendant-respondent,u.s. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Defendant-appellee, 976 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 976 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1992) Submitted Sept. 16, 1992. *Decided Sept. 24, 1992

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, FLETCHER and CANBY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Clement C. Nwabueze, a Nigerian citizen held at an I.N.S. detention center, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (10), "any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation may obtain judicial review thereof by habeas corpus proceedings." This review is strictly limited to matters related to the propriety of I.N.S. procedures, and only becomes available when an alien exhausts all administrative remedies. Sotelo Mondragon v. Ilchert, 653 F.2d 1254, 1256 (9th Cir. 1980); 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c).

At the time the district court reviewed Nwabueze's petition, his other challenge to the order of deportation (Docket No. 91-70419) was pending in this court. The district court advised him that it could not assume jurisdiction of his habeas action as long as the other challenge remained pending. The court further noted that his petition failed to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies. Nwabueze did not insert an exhaustion allegation, and his other action remains pending in this court.

Because Nwabueze failed to demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies, the district court properly dismissed the habeas petition. See Sotelo Mondragon, 653 F.2d at 1256. Although he argues that exhaustion would be futile, we have no reason to assume that the agency is incapable of correcting its own alleged mistakes.1 

The district court's judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3

 1

We find it unnecessary to address the jurisdictional issue

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.