FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO A. LOPEZ-MARROQUIN, No. 18-72922 AKA Ricardo Lopez, Agency No. A044-286-222 Petitioner, v. ORDER WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and KANE,* District Judge. Because district courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to immigration detention that are sufficiently independent of the merits of the removal order, Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211–12 (9th Cir. 2011), we construe Lopez-Marroquin’s emergency motion to remand pursuant to the All Writs Act as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and we transfer it to the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b) (a circuit court may “transfer the application [for a writ of habeas corpus] for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to entertain it”); Rumsfeld v. * The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The plain language of the habeas statute . . . confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”). We therefore do not reach Lopez-Marroquin’s argument that this court can order his release under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The Clerk will transfer the motion, opposition, and reply (docket nos. 45, 48, and 49) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and will serve this order on the district court. We urge the district court to address this matter expeditiously. The panel retains jurisdiction in this case, and Lopez-Marroquin’s petition for review remains on the June 3, 2020 Pasadena, California calendar. 2 FILED APR 9 2020 CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Citing generalized concerns over COVID-19, and ignoring the availability of habeas relief, Ricardo Lopez-Marroquin asks us to order his immediate release from immigration detention under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The majority does not reach the issue, but I would hold that the Act does not authorize us to entertain Lopez’s request. Indeed, granting it would encourage detainees to exploit the Act in an end-run around our jurisdictional limitations and separation- of-powers principles. I. The Immigration and Nationality Act cabins our jurisdiction to final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We are thus barred from considering Lopez’s attack on his detention as part of his petition for review.1 To hold otherwise would disturb “the distinction Congress made in the REAL ID Act between those challenges that must be directed to the court of appeals in a petition for review and those that must be retained in and decided by the district court [in a habeas petition].” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211 (9th ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals