## Facts

- Paul R. Julmiste, a Haitian national, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1979 and lived in the United States continuously for about 23 years.
- Julmiste incurred New Jersey criminal convictions, including a 1996 guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine (probationary sentence) and 1997 convictions for aggravated manslaughter and unlawful possession of a weapon (prison sentences).
- On November 8, 1999, the INS served Julmiste with a Notice to Appear charging removability under INA § 237(a)(2) based on his criminal convictions, including controlled-substance, aggravated-felony, and firearms grounds.
- Removal proceedings began on August 4, 2000. An Immigration Judge ordered Julmiste removed to Haiti, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
- Julmiste filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District of New Jersey to prevent execution of the removal order.
- Julmiste sought protection under regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting Haitian officials would likely torture him in retribution for alleged anti-government activities by members of his family.
- In opposing the petition, the government acknowledged Haiti’s instability and reports of abuse of prisoners, including politically motivated mistreatment, but argued there was no proof that Julmiste personally faced a likelihood of torture upon return.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider Julmiste’s constitutional and legal challenges to a final removal order in light of statutory limits on judicial review for certain criminal aliens.
2. Whether Julmiste was entitled to CAT protection because he showed it was more likely than not he would be tortured in Haiti by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.
3. Whether Julmiste’s additional constitutional, statutory, or international-law arguments barred his removal under the circumstances presented.

## Decision

- The court held that § 2241 habeas jurisdiction remained available for review of legal and constitutional claims connected to a final removal order, even where other review provisions restricted direct appellate review for criminal aliens.
- The court denied the habeas petition, concluding Julmiste did not establish entitlement to relief under CAT and did not show a constitutional or statutory defect that invalidated the removal order.
- The court left the final order of removal to Haiti in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes limiting judicial review of removal orders do not eliminate habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 absent a clear statement; habeas remains available at least for legal and constitutional claims.
- In immigration habeas, a district court may address questions of law and constitutional claims but does not conduct a de novo rehearing of the agency record or reweigh fact findings made by the IJ and BIA.
- CAT protection requires the applicant to prove it is more likely than not that the applicant will be subjected to “torture” as defined by regulation, and that the torture will be inflicted by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official (or other person acting in an official capacity).
- Evidence of harsh country conditions, instability, or generalized prison abuse does not by itself meet the CAT standard; the applicant must present non-speculative, individualized proof showing the required probability of torture for that person.
- A criminal alien’s long residence in the United States, family ties, or the difficult conditions in the destination country do not, without more, create a constitutional right to avoid removal where Congress has made the alien removable and the removal proceedings satisfied basic procedural requirements.
- International human-rights materials cited by a petitioner do not automatically supply a privately enforceable bar to removal in federal habeas absent a domestic legal source creating such a right.

## Conclusion

The District of New Jersey concluded it could entertain Julmiste’s habeas petition to the extent it raised legal and constitutional challenges to his final removal order, but it denied relief because the record did not show that Julmiste personally was more likely than not to be tortured in Haiti with official involvement, and his remaining constitutional and international-law objections did not invalidate the lawful removal order.


Julmiste v. Ashcroft, 212 F. Supp. 2d 341 (2002)