Skip to content
Back to explore
Justice Matrix · Case profile

Adolph Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center (24-2990)

United States (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)2026
Needs review
Needs review

Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.

Strategic issue

What was at stake

US court opinion from Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Nos. 24-2990 and 24-3198 _____________ ADOLPH MICHELIN v. WARDEN MOSHANNON VALLEY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; DIRECTOR PHILADELPHIA FIELD OFFICE IMMIGRATION AND

Facts

What happened

Adolph Michelin, an immigrant, challenged his detention at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, arguing that his rights were violated under the Refugee Convention. He claimed that his deportation would expose him to persecution in his home country.

Key holding

What the court decided

Holding not yet extracted from the source. Open the authoritative link to read it.

Reasoning

How the court got there

The court held that the detention of Michelin was unlawful under the Refugee Convention, emphasizing the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they may face serious threats to their life or freedom. The court found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently justify the continued detention of Michelin.

Authorities

Statutes and cases cited

Statutes & treaties
  • § Refugee Convention art. 33
Cases cited
  • Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister
Issue areas

Categories

immigration-detentionunited-states
Disclaimer and licence

This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.

Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.