M. Saleem v. PBPP and Dept. of Corrections

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mohammad Sohail Saleem, : : Petitioner : : v. : No. 14 M.D. 2017 : Submitted: November 22, 2017 PA Board of Probation and Parole and : Department of Corrections, : : Respondents : BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: January 10, 2018 On January 9, 2017, Mohammad Sohail Saleem (Petitioner), pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this Court seeking to have this Court order the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) to schedule another parole hearing and immediately parole Petitioner so he may be deported to Pakistan.1 Subsequent to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, both the Board and Petitioner filed Applications for Summary Relief, which are now before this Court for review. For the following reasons, we grant the Board’s Application for Summary Relief 1 In his Reply Brief, Petitioner requests that due to changed circumstances he be immediately paroled and remain in the United States rather than be deported to Pakistan. Petitioner has not amended his Petition for Writ of Mandamus to reflect this new request for relief. pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1532 and deny Petitioner’s Application for Summary Relief.2 The following facts are not in dispute. On June 3, 2015, Petitioner pled guilty to three counts of indecent assault and the remainder of the charges against him were nolle prossed. Petitioner was found to be a sexually violent predator and sentenced to a 1 year, 9 month to 10 year aggregate sentence with a minimum parole date of December 2, 2016 and a maximum date of March 2, 2025. As a part of his plea deal, Petitioner expected to be immediately deported to Pakistan; however, the United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately deport Petitioner. Petitioner reached his minimum parole date and, on November 29, 2016, the Board issued an order denying Petitioner parole, which stated: FOLLOWING AN INTERVIEW WITH YOU AND A REVIEW OF YOUR FILE, AND HAVING CONSIDERED ALL MATTERS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, HAS DETERMINED AT THIS TIME THAT: YOU ARE DENIED PAROLE/REPAROLE. THE REASONS FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: YOUR UNACCEPTABLE COMPLIANCE WITH PRESCRIBED INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS. YOUR NEED TO PARTICIPATE IN AND COMPLETE ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS. 2 In ruling on an application for summary relief, the court must view the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and enter judgment only if there are no genuine issues as to any material facts and the right to judgment is clear as a matter of law. McSpadden v. Department of Corrections, 886 A.2d 321, 325 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 2 YOUR RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INDICATING YOUR LEVEL OF RISK TO THE COMMUNITY. THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REPORTS, EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS/LEVEL OF RISK INDICATES ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals