FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANJINDER SINGH, No. 19-70932 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A215-827-867 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. KULWANT SINGH, No. 19-71025 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A201-431-264 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 2, 2020 Seattle, Washington Filed December 9, 2020 2 SINGH V. BARR Before: Jay S. Bybee and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges, and Richard G. Stearns,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Bybee SUMMARY** Immigration The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Manjinder Singh and Kulwant Singh’s petitions for review of separate immigration judge decisions concluding that they lacked jurisdiction to reopen credible fear proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A). The panel observed that judicial review of an expedited removal order, including the merits of a credible fear determination, is expressly prohibited by § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petitioners stressed that they were not asking this court to review the merits of the IJs’ credible fear determinations, but instead were asking the court to exercise jurisdiction to review the IJs’ denials of motions to reopen on the grounds that the IJs misconstrued their authority to do so under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A). The panel concluded that it could not do so, explaining that where Congress explicitly withdraws jurisdiction to review a final order of deportation, * The Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SINGH V. BARR 3 authority to review motions to reconsider or to reopen deportation proceedings is thereby likewise withdrawn. While recognizing that § 1252(e) authorizes some judicial review of expedited removal orders and policies and procedures, the panel concluded that it did not provide jurisdiction over petitioners’ specific challenges. The panel noted that in Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017), and Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018), this court determined that it had jurisdiction to consider an IJ’s denial of motions to reopen or reconsider, but the panel concluded that those cases were distinguishable, because they involved review of reasonable fear determinations in the context of a reinstatement of a prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), rather than a credible fear determination under § 1225(b)(1). The panel also concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which re-vests the court with jurisdiction to hear certain constitutional claims or questions of law, did not apply, because that provision provides jurisdiction to review claims otherwise barred under § 1252(a)(2) Subparagraphs (B) or (C), or those barred by provisions other than § 1252, but by its own terms does not cover claims barred by Subparagraph (A), which was the provision that applied in this case. The panel explained that even a decision that might appear to fall within Subparagraphs ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals