# Ramiro Cornejo-Barreto, AKA Rabbit, AKA Cornhole v. W.H. Seifert, Warden

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 11, 2000 · 218 F.3d 1004

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493225

## Case

- **Full name:** Ramiro CORNEJO-BARRETO, AKA Rabbit, AKA Cornhole, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.H. SEIFERT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 11, 2000
- **Citations:** 218 F.3d 1004; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 7559; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5661; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15857; 2000 WL 943552
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kozinski
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Kozinski, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Hedelito Garcia v. Linda Thomas, 683 F.3d 952 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493225

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[tjhe FARR Act of 1998 did not limit habeas corpus review” because “[ajny limitation of federal habeas corpus must be by express command” and FARRA makes “no mention of habeas corpus review” (internal citations and quotation marks omit ted)
- holding that "[t]he FARR Act of 1998 did not limit habeas corpus review" because "[a]ny limitation of federal habeas corpus must be by express command" and FARRA makes "no mention of habeas corpus review" (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)
- concluding that “[t]he FARR Act does not preclude judicial review of the Secretary’s implementation of the Torture Convention” without discussing whether the relevant language from § 2242(d) constitutes such a preclusion
- affirming denial of a habeas petition challenging a certification of extraditability and commitment order under the Convention Against Torture on the ground that those claims are not ripe for judicial review until the Secretary of State determines that the accused will be surr…
- stating that “[o]ur research failed to identify any case in which this theoretical exception has been applied” and declining to con- sider it

## Opinion text

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I do not join Section III of the opinion, because the question of whether petitioner would be entitled to judicial review of an extradition decision by the Secretary of State is not before us. I would hold only that the district court does not have jurisdiction to review petitioner’s claim under the Torture Convention, because the FARR Act does not authorize judicial enforcement of the Convention, see Sandhu v. Burke, No. 97 Civ. 4608, 2000 WL 191707 , at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2000), and the Convention is not self-executing under the four-part test of Saipan v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 502 F.2d 90, 97 (9th Cir.1974). See Barapind v. Reno, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1148-49 (E.D.Cal.1999); see also Sandhu, 2000 WL 191707 , at *10.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493225. Public record. Not legal advice.