Siagha-Coke v. USCIS Immigration Services
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-08163
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Felibi Siagha-Coke v. USCIS Immigration Services, Judge Garnett dismissed the case because Felibi Siagha-Coke was never in custody.
Felibi Siagha-Coke, whose petition was dismissed, and USCIS Immigration Services, the named respondent.
What happened
In Felibi Siagha-Coke v. USCIS Immigration Services, Felibi Siagha-Coke filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging abuse of process and a due-process violation.
The court asked the respondent to confirm whether Siagha-Coke was in custody. The respondent reported that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed Siagha-Coke was not in custody when the petition was filed and had never been in custody.
Judge Garnett ruled that federal courts can review a custody-related petition only when the petitioner is in custody. Because that requirement was not met, the court dismissed the case, directed the Clerk of Court to close it, and ordered a copy of the order mailed to Siagha-Coke.
The detailed version
- Siagha-Coke v. USCIS Immigration Services · No. 1:25-cv-08163
- Garnett
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
On October 1, 2025, Felibi Siagha-Coke filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging “abuse of process” and a violation of due process. The petition did not allege that Siagha-Coke was in custody. The court ordered USCIS Immigration Services, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, to provide information about whether Siagha-Coke was in custody.
Custody Information
The respondent filed the requested letter on November 4, 2025. According to the letter, a review by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and non-party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed that Siagha-Coke was not in custody and had not been in custody when the petition was filed. The opinion’s footnote explains that “USCIS Immigration Services,” the respondent named in the petition, refers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Court’s Analysis
A petitioner must be “in custody” to invoke a federal court’s authority to decide a petition under the federal custody-review statute. The court concluded that Siagha-Coke was never in custody. It therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear this type of case. The court did not reach the allegations of abuse of process or due process.
Disposition
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered that the case be DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court was directed to CLOSE the case and mail a copy of the order to Siagha-Coke at the address identified in the order. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.