FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 22, 2019 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT LINA THOUNG, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 17-3220 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (D.C. NO. 5:17-CV-03032-EFM) Matthew L. Hoppock, The Hoppock Law Firm, LLC, Overland Park, Kansas, for Petitioner-Appellant. Jared S. Maag, Assistant United States Attorney (Stephen R. McAllister, United States Attorney, District of Kansas, and James A. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellant Division, with him on the briefs), Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, Kansas, for Respondent-Appellee. Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge. Lina Thoung illegally entered the United States in 2002. After the government learned of her illegal status, she jointly stipulated to a removal order after pleading guilty in district court to document fraud. But deportation proceedings never occurred. Five years later, she filed a writ of habeas corpus with the district court alleging the court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter its order of removal. The district court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to order removal and rejected Thoung’s habeas petition. We hold that, because of the REAL ID Act’s limitations on judicial review, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Thoung’s habeas petition challenging the prior removal order. I. Background Thoung emigrated from Cambodia to the United States in 2002 using a fraudulently obtained visa in the name and birthdate of another person. In 2007, she obtained U.S. citizenship and affirmed she had never provided false information to any government official while applying for any immigration benefit. Her fraud was discovered in 2012. She subsequently pleaded guilty to misusing a visa, permit, and other documents to obtain citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). As part of her plea agreement, she jointly stipulated to denaturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(e) and removal from the United States. Relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1228(c)(5), the district court entered an order of removal. Immigration authorities, unable to deport Thoung back to Cambodia, eventually -2- released her subject to an Order of Supervision. Under this order, Thoung could be arrested and deported at any time. In 2017, Thoung filed a writ of habeas corpus—apparently under 28 U.S.C. § 2241—alleging the district court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the judicial removal order requested under the plea agreement. Neither the government nor the district court considered the potential applicability of the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and the substantial limitations it imposes on judicial review. On the merits, the district court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to enter Thoung’s removal order. Thoung appealed the district court’s assertion of subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the 2013 removal order. II. Analysis We first consider whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Thoung’s habeas petition, a question of statutory interpretation. Gonzales-Alarcon v. Macias, 884 F.3d 1266, 1273 (10th Cir. 2018). We conclude the REAL ID ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals