UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I.M., Petitioner-Plaintiff, v. No. 20-cv-3576 (DLF) U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION et al., Respondents-Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION In this action, petitioner-plaintiff I.M. challenges his expedited order of removal to his native country of Before the Court is the respondents-defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Dkt. 23. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, the Court will grant the respondents-defendants’ motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Legal Background In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.), which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and created an expedited removal scheme. Under the INA, as amended, aliens “arriving in the United States” are subject to expedited removal if an immigration officer determines they are inadmissible due to misrepresentation or lack of immigration papers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). If such an alien indicates to the immigration officer that he fears persecution or torture if returned to his country, the officer “shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer,” id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), to determine whether he “has a credible fear of persecution [or torture],” id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). If the interviewing asylum officer determines that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer makes a “negative credible fear determination” and orders the removal of the alien “without further hearing or review,” except by an immigration judge. Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(I). An alien may request that an immigration judge conduct a de novo review of the officer’s negative credible fear determination, see id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III), but if the immigration judge upholds the asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination, the determination is final and the alien is subject to removal, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A). Federal district courts have limited review of orders of removal under § 1225. Except as provided in § 1252(e), the INA strips courts of jurisdiction to review: (1) “any individual determination or to entertain any other cause or claim arising from or relating to the implementation or operation of an [expedited removal] order,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i); (2) “a decision by the Attorney General to invoke” the expedited removal regime, id. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(ii); and (3) the “procedures and policies adopted by the Attorney General to implement the provisions of [§ 1225(b)(1)],” id. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iv). Section 1252(e), however, preserves judicial review for a small subset of issues relating to individual expedited removal orders: Judicial review of any determination made under [§ 1225(b)(1)] is available in habeas corpus proceedings, but shall be limited to determinations of— (A) whether the petitioner is an alien, (B) whether the petitioner was ordered removed under [§ 1225(b)(1)], and (C) whether the petitioner can prove . . . that the petitioner is [a lawful permanent resident], has been admitted as a refugee . . . , or has been granted asylum . . . . Id. § 1252(e)(2). In reviewing …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals