Younis El Sayedri v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, No. 17-6607 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6607 YOUNIS EL SAYEDRI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; C. ALEXANDRIA BOGLE, Office of the united state attorney; MICHAEL J. FRANK, Office of the united state attorney; JULIA K. MARTINEZ, Office of the united state attorney; RICHARD CROPP, Assistant Field Office Director for ICAFarmville, Enforcement & Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; THOMAS HOMAN, Assistant Field Office Director for ICAFarmville, Enforcement & Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; M. YVONNE EVANS, Washington, D.C. Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SARAH SALDANA, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01412-AJT-IDD) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Younis El Sayedri, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Ayana Niambi Free, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Younis El Sayedri appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Insofar as El Sayedri challenged his convictions, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. El Sayedri v. Sessions, No. 1:16-cv-01412-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. May 1, 2017). We dismiss the appeal from that part of the court’s order concerning El Sayedri’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (2012) (stating that exclusive means to challenge final order of removal is petition for review). Finally, we grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss as moot that part of the appeal challenging El Sayedri’s continued detention. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3

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.