IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11509
Summary Calendar
JUAN VENTURA VERA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
ANNE ESTRADA, INS District Director of Dallas,
Texas; JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
U.S.; IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CV-1044-X
--------------------
August 21, 2002
Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Ventura Vera (“Ventura”), an excludable alien who
arrived in the United States in the 1980 Mariel boatlift from
Cuba, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus
petition, in which he challenges his continued detention by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). The INS most
recently took Ventura into custody in 1999, after he completed a
prison term for first-degree assault in Missouri, the latest
conviction in his extensive criminal history within the United
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 01-11509
-2-
States. In his habeas petition, Ventura argued that the INS
seized him without a warrant in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, that his continued detention violated his due process
rights and right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,
and that he was being forced to work in violation of his
Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from involuntary servitude.
The district court rejected his due process and Eighth Amendment
claims on the merits, concluded that he had waived his Fourth
Amendment claim by failing to appeal from the INS’s removal
order, and failed to address his Thirteenth Amendment claim.
This court reviews de novo the district court’s dismissal of
a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of an excluded
alien. Gisbert v. United States Attorney General, 988 F.2d 1437,
1440 (5th Cir. 1993) (addressing similar due process claims by
Mariel detainees), as amended by, 997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1993).
We held in Gisbert that an excluded alien’s substantive due
process rights have not been violated because the indefinite
detention is not a “punishment.” Id. at 1441-42. In addition,
because the Attorney General has discretion to grant or deny
immigration parole, Ventura has no liberty interest in
immigration parole. Id. Although the Supreme Court, in the
recent Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), held that a
deportable alien may contest his continued detention in a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding, the Court distinguished the status of
deportable aliens from that of excludable aliens like Ventura.
See id. at 682, 692-94.
No. 01-11509
-3-
Ventura’s failure to dispute the district court’s conclusion
that he has waived his Fourth Amendment challenge is tantamount
to a failure to appeal the basis upon which this claim was
dismissed. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Although the respondents and district court failed to
address Ventura’s Thirteenth Amendment claim below, Ventura’s
allegations regarding his work requirements remain too vague to
establish that he is being subjected to “slavery” or “involuntary
servitude.” See Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549, 1552 (5th Cir.
1990); Channer v. Hall, 112 F.3d 214, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1997).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All
outstanding motions are DENIED.