already been removed from the United States. The court held that he was not ‘in custody’ for the purposes of habeas because he was “acting” outside the United States, and thus under no “greater restraint than any other non-citizen living outside American borders.” Id. Here, Petitioner is based in the United States and has been residing within its borders since 1995. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that she moved outside the United States during the removal proceedings; nor that she has sought to do so. These facts are distinct from Patel, which dilutes any effect that case may have on existing precedent. See, Nakaranurack, 68 F.3d 290. Cf. See, Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2001) and Kumarasamy v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 453 F.3d 169 at 172-73 (3d Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>) The next case, Shamim v. Chertoff No. C
holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment holding that where a person has been removed from united states at time of filing a habeas petition the custody requirement is not met holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision