United States 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Reports

Unpublished

IN RE: CHUKWUEMEKA OBI, 06-4906 (3rd Cir. 1-10-2007) IN RE:
GEORGE CHUKWUEMEKA OBI, Petitioner. No. 06-4906. United
States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Submitted Under
Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro. December 21, 2006. Filed January
10, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the
issuing court.] On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 06-325).

Before: Barry, Ambro and Fisher, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

George Chukwuemeka Obi asks that we issue a writ of
mandamus directing the District Court to dismiss a criminal
indictment against him. We will deny Obi’s petition.

On September 26, 2006, a grand jury indicted Obi, charging
him with willfully failing and refusing to apply for
travel documents so that his deportation to Nigeria could
be effectuated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(B).
Pending before us on that date was Obi’s petition for
review of the Immigration Judge’s final order of removal.
Approximately one month later, we denied Obi’s petition for
review. Obi v. Atty. Gen’l, C.A. No. 06-2579, slip op. at 5
(3d Cir. Oct. 30, 2006). Obi contends that the criminal
indictment against him was unlawful because of the
overlapping pendency in this court of the review of the
administrative order. See Mandamus Petition, 2-3 (arguing
that his case could only be before one court at a time).

Mandamus is an appropriate remedy only in the most
extraordinary of situations. Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312,
314 (3d Cir. 1985). To justify the remedy, a petitioner
must show that he has (i) no other adequate means of
obtaining the desired relief and (ii) a “clear and
indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. See Haines v.
Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992)
(citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976)). Obi has not demonstrated a “clear and
indisputable” right to mandamus relief.

Review of a final order of deportation is a civil
proceeding, making it entirely separate from any criminal
prosecution of an alien who fails to cooperate with
deportation. See, e.g., INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S.
1032, 1038 (1984). We are aware of no precedent, and Obi
points to none, prohibiting the issuance of an indictment
while judicial review of separate administrative
proceedings is conducted. Certainly, Obi has not
demonstrated any “clear and indisputable” right that has
been breached in the District Court.

For the reasons given, we will deny the petition for a writ
of mandamus.