NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-2521 ______ HECTOR G.M., Appellant v. WARDEN ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER; FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DIRECTOR UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 2-20-cv-06034) District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 26, 2021 ____________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., PHIPPS, and COWEN, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: November 16, 2021) ___________ OPINION * ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. This appeal of a jurisdictional dismissal of an alien’s habeas petition turns on the role of the writ of habeas corpus in immigration litigation. The petitioner, who was removed during the pendency of his habeas petition, sought an order for his return to the United States so he could pursue a motion to reopen immigration proceedings and apply for a U-visa. But Congress has jurisdictionally excluded habeas petitions as a means of challenging the execution of removal orders, so we will affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing this case on jurisdictional grounds. I. Hector García Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, was arrested in Freehold, New Jersey on March 13, 2020, and charged with two state-law crimes: trespass and hindering. Although he was released from police custody later that day, his freedom from confinement was short-lived. As he left the police station, federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him and transported him to the Elizabeth Detention Center. While García Mendoza was detained there, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him. As part of those proceedings, García Mendoza twice appeared pro se before an Immigration Judge, accompanied by a court- appointed interpreter. At the first hearing, the Immigration Judge offered García Mendoza more time to find an attorney. Although García Mendoza accepted that offer, he did not retain an attorney before his second hearing, and he again appeared pro se. 2 The Immigration Judge considered García Mendoza’s testimony regarding past mistreatment but ultimately determined that he should be removed. As part of the resolution of those proceedings, García Mendoza waived his right to file an administrative appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Without pursuing such an administrative appeal, García Mendoza could not petition in federal court for review of his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts over orders of removal to only challenges brought through “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals” notwithstanding any statutes providing jurisdiction for habeas review); Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1690 (2020) (“The REAL ID Act [codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1252] clarified that final orders of removal may not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals