The Bolante Files 3

FORMER agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-joc” Bolante’s legal battle against his continued detention suffered a major setback after the district court judge hearing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus ordered it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Lynn Adelman of the District Court of Eastern Wisconsin ruled last October 18 that she cannot act on Bolante’s petition, citing the non-reviewability doctrine expanded by the U.S. Congress in 2004 stripping district courts of the authority to review visa revocations except those of lawfully admitted aliens found to be deportable.

Bolante is accused of masterminding the P728-million fertilizer fund scam allegedly diverted to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidential campaign. He was arrested on July 7 upon his arrival in Los Angeles owing to a cancelled visa. He was told by a U.S. immigration officer that the U.S. Embassy in Manila revoked his B1/B2 visa in light of the arrest warrant issued by the Senate for his role in the fund scam.

Since Bolante has not yet been admitted, Adelman said that pertinent provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) cited by Bolante do not apply in his case.

Read Adelman’s decision denying Bolante’s petition for habeas corpus here.

Presently confined at the Kenosha County jail, Bolante, through his lawyers from the Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC, had argued that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has no basis to hold him because his visa had been improperly revoked.

To support his petition for habeas corpus, Bolante’s lawyers also submitted news clippings on the “Nicole” rape case as supplement exhibits to demonstrate that he is likely being used as a “political pawn” in exchange for the release of American soldiers accused of raping a 22-year-old Filipina.

The law, however, precludes immigration judges from reviewing legal issues arising out of immigration proceedings like in Bolante’s case. “The legality of Bolante’s detention depends on the resolution of such issues as whether the government lawfully revoked his visa and whether he is removable from the United States, and, as indicated above, I am precluded from reviewing those issues,” stated Adelman.

The present law also refers only to “removal,” provisions of which stipulate that an unadmitted alien is subject to removal because he is “inadmissible” (INA § 212) while an admitted alien is subject to removal because he is “deportable” (INA § 237).

Since the government has already initiated removal proceedings that are ongoing, the present case is also not within the narrow category of cases over which district courts have jurisdiction.

On Bolante’s application for bail, Adelman said the court may not review the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) refusal to parole petitioner. “Further, because I lack jurisdiction to grant a writ, I have no inherent power to grant bail as a means of making the habeas remedy effective.”

“The dismissal of Jocelyn Bolante’s petition for habeas corpus leaves him with very limited options. His fate now depends exclusively on the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security. The fact that these two agencies have refused him bail is also indicative of these agencies’ position that he has no legal basis to stay in the US,” said lawyer Harry Roque.

The director of the Institute of International Legal Studies (IILS) of the U.P. Law Center filed an amicus brief in August to convince the court not to grant Bolante’s request for political asylum.

“His only recourse is to tell the truth about the fertilizer scandal. It is revealing information of this kind that would subject him to true political persecution in the Philippines and strengthen his bid for asylum. Anytime he is willing to reveal the truth, I would be happy to take his deposition,” Roque added.