NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1972-18T3 REHAN ZUBERI, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. _____________________________ Submitted December 19, 2019 – Decided January 29, 2020 Before Judges Nugent and Suter. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Adam W. Toraya, attorney for appellant. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephanie R. Dugger, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Appellant, Rehan Zuberi, an inmate at Southern State Correctional Facility, appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) that denied his request for a reduced-custody status to "Full Minimum." He argues: THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO PLACE OVERRIDE CODE B UPON PLAINTIFF AND DENY HIM MINIMUM STATUS WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. For the following reasons, we affirm. On September 5, 2017, a judge sentenced appellant to an aggregate prison term of eight years with two years and eight months of parole ineligibility for money laundering, commercial bribery, and theft by deception. As with all new inmates, appellant underwent initial classification processing (N.J.A.C. 10A:9- 2.1(a)) and thereafter began to serve his sentence at Mid-State Correctional Facility. Of the six categories of custody status within the New Jersey Department of Corrections—close custody, maximum custody, medium custody, gang minimum custody, full minimum custody, and community custody, N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.1(a)—he was assigned medium custody status. Appellant's status was based on application of an "override code," a code applied "when an inmate cannot be assigned to the recommended custody status A-1972-18T3 2 indicated by the custody status score on the Initial or Reclassification Instruments." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-2.14(a). The applicable override code was "Code F: Medium custody status assignment of above pending U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) response indicating interest pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.6(n). . . ." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-2.14(a)(7). N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.6(n) states: "Foreign born inmates, excluding U.S. territories and possessions, shall be eligible to be considered for reduced custody status provided the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has not responded to referrals within 120 calendar days." On September 15, 2017, ten days after appellant was sentenced, ICE had sent the DOC an "Interest Letter" that stated, "[s]ubject is currently under investigation as a criminal alien and may receive an immigration detainer in the future as DHS 1 processes according to release date." Appellant was subsequently transferred to Southern State Correctional Facility. Based on his scores on a "Reclassification Instrument," appellant could have been assigned full minimum custody status, but was assigned medium custody status based on override "Code B: Medium custody status assignment or above pending disposition of non-permissible detainer or open charge pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.6." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-2.14(a)(2). 1 Department of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals