In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20‐1200 E.F.L., Petitioner‐Appellant, v. BILL PRIM, et al., Respondents‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:20‐cv‐00072 — Steven Charles Seeger, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2020 — DECIDED JANUARY 26, 2021 ____________________ Before FLAUM, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. KANNE, Circuit Judge. E.F.L.’s1 petition for habeas corpus asks that we enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from removing her while her Violence Against Women Act 1 Because of E.F.L.’s allegations of domestic abuse and her fear of re‐ taliation, this court granted her motion to use a pseudonym while pursu‐ ing this appeal. See Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). 2 No. 20‐1200 petition is pending. That petition, though, has been approved. So E.F.L.’s request is moot. Plus, Congress has divested us of jurisdiction over such challenges. We thus affirm the district court’s decision dismissing E.F.L.’s habeas petition for want of jurisdiction, and we terminate our temporary stay of re‐ moval. I. BACKGROUND E.F.L. is a Mexican national and citizen who has lived in the United States for nearly twenty years.2 During that time, she has endured domestic abuse that is extreme in nature. We will not repeat any nongermane details of her harrowing alle‐ gations here. But in 2018, the Department of Homeland Secu‐ rity (“DHS”) discovered E.F.L.’s undocumented presence in the country, reinstated a prior removal order against her, and scheduled her removal. E.F.L. then travailed several avenues pursuing relief from removal. First, E.F.L. filed an application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture. While that application was un‐ der review, she sought alternative relief by filing a self‐peti‐ tion under the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). The resolution of these pursuits has been a bit circuitous. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied E.F.L.’s application for withholding of removal, and we declined to review that decision. After we did so—but 2 We accept as true all of E.F.L.’s well‐pled factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. See Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). No. 20‐1200 3 while E.F.L.’s VAWA petition remained pending—DHS sought to execute E.F.L.’s removal order. That prompted E.F.L. to file the habeas petition currently before us. E.F.L.’s habeas petition seeks “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining [DHS] from removing [her] from the U.S. while her VAWA self‐petition remains pending with USCIS.” As a basis for this injunction, the petition alleges that “[i]f USCIS approves her VAWA self‐petition, then [she] will receive deferred action, employment authorization, and per‐ mission to remain in the U.S.” And as a result, DHS would violate the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Proce‐ dure Act by executing E.F.L.’s removal order while her VAWA petition remains ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals