19-3547 Troy v. Barr UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________ John Troy, as Next Friend on behalf of Xue Hui Zhang, Petitioner-Appellant, v. 19-3547 William P. Barr, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States, United States Department of Homeland Security, Gwynne DiNolfo, Director of the Albany Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf, Matthew T. Albence, Acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Carmen Whaling, Director of the Buffalo Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Patrick A. Russo, Sheriff of the Rensselaer County Sheriff of the Rensselaer County, Respondents-Appellees, Kirstjen Nielsen, Thomas E. Feeley, Respondents. _____________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT: John Troy, Aaron Schweitzer, Troy Law, PLLC, Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES: Karen Folster Lesperance, Assistant United States Attorney, of Counsel, for Grant C. Jaquith, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sannes, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Xue Hui Zhang appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “On appeal from the denial of a habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, we review the merits of the petition and any other legal questions pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Kuhali v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Ragbir v. Homan, 923 F.3d 53, 62 (2d Cir. 2019). “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Section 1252(g) is a jurisdictional limitation ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals