Amissah v. Ashcroft, et al

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 28, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30756
USDC No. 02-CV-893
MICHAEL AMISSAH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUREAU
OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Amissah, a native of Ghana, was convicted of
distribution of cocaine in the Eastern District of Tennessee on
November 16, 2000, and was sentenced to nine months in prison.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Immigration
Judge (IJ) ordered that Amissah be removed from the United States
to Ghana. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected
Amissah’s argument that he was a United States citizen because

-- 1 of 3 --

O R D E R
No. 02-30756
-2-
his father was naturalized and dismissed his appeal. This court
dismissed Amissah’s petition for review of the BIA’s order.
Amissah v. Ashcroft, No. 02-60184 (5th Cir. Apr. 17)
(unpublished).
Amissah filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Because Amissah was
incarcerated at the INS holding facility in Oakdale, Louisiana
the transfer of his petition to the Western District of Louisiana
was correct. See Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 517-18
(5th Cir. 2001); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132
(5th Cir. 1987).
Amissah argues that the district court erred in denying
him relief under § 2241 because he is a United States citizen.
The Government contends that consideration of whether Amissah
is a citizen is barred under the doctrines of res judicata or
collateral estoppel. Under Medina v. INS, 993 F.2d 499, 503-04
(5th Cir.), on reh’g, 1 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 1993)), if the
proceeding before the BIA was adjudicatory, in that it involved
the “resolution of contested issues of fact and application
of legal principles to the facts thus determined,” the
administrative proceeding “has the ‘authority of the thing
adjudged’ to the same extent as does a case first litigated
in a court of law.” “The only considerations for purposes of
res judicata are whether (1) the case in which the valid, final
judgment was rendered involved the same parties and issues, and

-- 2 of 3 --

O R D E R
No. 02-30756
-3-
(2) there was an opportunity to reach the merits on those
issues.” Id. at 504.
The record leaves no room to dispute that the question
whether Amissah was a naturalized citizen was litigated before
the IJ, the BIA, and this court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C);
Nehme v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 252 F.3d 415,
433 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the findings and conclusions
of the BIA that Amissah is not a citizen are res judicata. The
district court’s judgment denying Amissah’s § 2241 petition is
AFFIRMED.
The stay of deportation pending the resolution of this
appeal granted on September 24, 2002 is LIFTED.

-- 3 of 3 --