United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued March 29, 2021 Decided August 17, 2021 No. 20-5079 SELVIN LEONARDY SOLIS MEZA, APPELLANT v. TRACY RENAUD, ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:19-cv-01322) Geoffrey Forney argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Bradley B. Banias. Mary L. Larakers, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With her on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Elianis N. Perez, Assistant Director. R. Craig Lawrence and Marsha W. Yee, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, entered appearances. Before: TATEL, MILLETT, and KATSAS, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed Circuit Judge KATSAS. 2 KATSAS, Circuit Judge: Seeking an adjustment of status from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Selvin Solis Meza contends that he is an arriving alien—a question resolved against him in a prior removal proceeding. This case presents the question whether the Immigration and Nationality Act barred the district court from considering Meza’s argument. I A The INA governs the removal of aliens from the United States. It provides that an alien is inadmissible if he is “present in the United States without being admitted or paroled” or if he arrived in the United States “at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). 1 The INA makes inadmissible aliens removable. Id. §§ 1227(a)(1)(A), 1229a(e)(2). To commence removal proceedings, the government must issue the alien a “notice to appear” at a removal hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). This notice must inform the alien of the charges against him and the time and place of the hearing. Id. § 1229(a)(1)(D), (G)(i). If the alien does not attend the hearing, an immigration judge may order him removed in absentia upon finding “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that the alien had notice of the hearing and is removable. Id. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). 1 When Meza entered the country, the Attorney General was responsible for designating times and places of arrival. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 later transferred this authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security, though the INA still refers to the Attorney General. See 6 U.S.C. § 251(2). 3 Section 1252 of Title 8 provides for judicial review of final removal orders. As relevant here, it states that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Such a petition must be filed within 30 days of the removal order, in the court of appeals for the judicial circuit where the removal proceeding was conducted. Id. § 1252(b)(1), (2). Section 1252 further provides that such a petition is the sole means for obtaining judicial review of “questions of law and fact … arising from any action taken or proceeding …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals