NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1882 __________ HESKETH REVAN, Appellant v. WARDEN, ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY __________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-15172) District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 20, 2020 Before: JORDAN, BIBAS and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 22, 2020) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Hesketh Revan, a native of St. Kitts and Nevis and a citizen of the United Kingdom, was ordered removed from the United States in 2000 for having been * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. convicted of an aggravated felony. In 2001, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Revan was removed in 2003, but he re-entered the United States illegally in 2006, and the order of removal was reinstated. Revan was nevertheless released on an order of supervision, and it was not until 2018 that he was taken into custody and removed to St. Kitts. Just prior to that removal, Revan filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing that the 2001 final removal order was “functionally invalid” because the Immigration Judge failed to advise him that he may be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA § 212(c), 1 or that he may have derived citizenship from his grandmother. 2 The District Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition, citing the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, and dismissed it. This appeal ensued. Exercising de novo review, we will affirm. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010). The REAL ID Act stripped district courts of jurisdiction over § 2241 petitions challenging removal orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Instead, “a petition for review . . . [is] ‘the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.’” Verde- 1 Pursuant to INA § 212(c), deportable aliens who had accrued seven years of lawful permanent residence in the United States could request discretionary relief from deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). 2 Revan maintains that he was brought to the United States in 1968, when he was eight months old, and that he lived with his grandmother, who became a U.S. citizen in 1979, until he was 17 years old. 2 Rodriguez v. Att’y Gen., 734 F.3d 198, 201 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)). 3 Revan argues on appeal that he did not challenge his removal order, but rather he sought to attack the “unlawful[ ] depriv[ation] of the right to pursue relief from the deportation order.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. While we have recognized that § 1252(a)(5) does not preclude a habeas corpus challenge of something other than ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals