Castro v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

Decision Date29 August 2016
Docket NumberNo. 16–1339,16–1339
Parties Rosa Elida Castro; A.A.G.C.; Laura Lisseth Flores–Pichinte; E.S.U.F.; Karen Margarita Zelaya Alberto; S.E.A.Z ; Kelly Gutierrez Rubio; G.J.S.G.; Gladis Carrasco Gomez; B.J.R.C.; Wendy Amparo Osorio Martinez; D.S.R.O. ; Carmen Leiva–Menjivar; E.A.M.L.; A.M.M.L.; Dina Isabel Huezo De Chicas; L.J.C.H. ; Cindy Gisela Lopez Funez; W.S.M.L.; Lesly Grizelda Cruz Matamoros; C.N.V.C.; Jeydi Erazo Anduray; D.A.L.E.; Dinora Lemus; A.R.M.L.; Jennys Mendez Debonilla; A.B.B.M.; Marta Alicia Rodriguez Romero; W.A.M.R.; C.A.M.R. ; Roxana Aguirre–Lemus; C.A.A.; Celia Patricia Soriano Bran; J.A.A.S. ; Maria Delmi Martinez Nolasco; J.E.L.M. ; Guadalupe Flores Flores; W.J.B.F.; Carmen Aleyda Lobo Mejia; A.D.M.L.L.; Julissa Clementina Hernandez Jiminez; A.H.V.H.; *Maria Erlinda Mejia Melgar; *E.N.C.M.; *D.G.C.M.; Jethzabel Martiza Aguilar Manica; V.G.R.A.; Heymi Lissamancia Arevalo–Monterroza; R.N.F.A; Elsa Milagros Rodriguez Garcia; J.M.V.G. ; Elizabeth Benitez De Marquez; A.M.B.; Ingrid Maricela Elias Soriano; A.E.C.E.; Maribel Maria Escobar Ramirez; C.Y.L.E.; Y.I.L.E.; R.J.L.E.; Ana Maricel Rodriguez–Granados; J.A.B.R.; V.E.B.R.; Zulma Lorena Portillo De Diaz; K.L.D.P., Appellants v. United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Customs and Border Protection ; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Secretary of DHS; Attorney General of the United States; Commissioner of CBP; Director of USCIS; Philadelphia Field Director, CBP; Philadelphia Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Director, Berks County Residential Center * Dismissed Pursuant to Court's Order entered May 13, 2016.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Lee P. Gelernt [ARGUED], American Civil Liberties Union, Immigrants' Rights Project, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004, Jennifer C. Newell, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 39 Drumm Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Mary Catherine Roper, Molly M. Tack–Hooper, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, P.O. Box 60173, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Witold J. Walczak, American Civil Liberties Union, 313 Atwood Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, Counsel for Appellants

Joseph A. Darrow, Erez Reuveni [ARGUED], United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration, Litigation, 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, Counsel for Appellees

Ethan D. Dettmer, Gibson Dunn, 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94105, Counsel for Amici Curiae Gabriel J.Chin, Nancy Morawetz, Hiroshi Motomura, David Thronson, Leti Volpp, and Stephen Yale–Loehr

Jonathan H. Feinberg, Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Mark C. Fleming, WilmerHale, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Counsel for Amici Curiae Erwin Chermerinsky, Eric M. Freedman, Brandon L. Garrett, Jonathan L. Hafetz, Paul D. Halliday, Randy A. Hertz, Aziz Huq, Lee Kovarsky, Christopher N. Lasch, James S. Liebman, Gerald L. Neuman, Kermit Roosevelt, Theodore W. Ruger, Stephen I. Vladeck, and Michael J. Wishnie

Bruce P. Merenstein, Nancy Winkelman, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Amici Curiae Tahirih Justice Center, David B. Thronson, Young Center for, Immigrant Childrens Rights, Sheila I. Velez–Martinez, Shoba S. Wadhia, Maureen A. Sweeney, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, American Friends Service, Farrin R. Anello, Jon Bauer, Lenni Benson, Linda Bosniak, Benjamin Casper, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Denise Gilman, Joanne Gottesman, Geoffrey A. Hoffman, KIND, Inc., National Immigrant Justice, Center (NIJC), Sarah H. Paoletti, Michele R. Pistone, Galya Ruffer, and Rebecca A. Sharpless

Charles Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60604, Counsel for Amicus Curiae National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC)

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

OPINION

SMITH

, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners are twenty-eight families—twenty-eight women and their minor children—who filed habeas petitions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prevent, or at least postpone, their expedited removal from this country. They were ordered expeditiously removed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to its authority under § 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)

. Before DHS could effect their removal, however, each petitioning family indicated a fear of persecution if returned to their native country. Nevertheless, following interviews with an asylum officer and subsequent de novo review by an immigration judge (IJ), Petitioners' fear of persecution was found to be not credible, such that their expedited removal orders became administratively final. Each family then filed a habeas petition challenging various issues relating to their removal orders.

In this appeal we must determine, first, whether the District Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of Petitioners' habeas petitions under § 242 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252

.1 Because we hold that the District Court does not have jurisdiction under the statute, we must also determine whether the statute violates the Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution. This is a very difficult question that neither this Court nor the Supreme Court has addressed. We hold that, at least as applied to Petitioners and other similarly situated aliens, § 1252 does not violate the Suspension Clause. Consequently, we will affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petitioners' habeas petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

The statutory and regulatory provisions of the expedited removal regime are at the heart of this case. We will, therefore, provide an overview of the provisions which form the framework governing expedited removal before further introducing Petitioners and their specific claims. First, we will discuss 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)

and its implementing regulations, which lay out the administrative side of the expedited removal regime. We will then turn to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which specifies the scope of judicial review of all removal orders, including expedited removal orders.

A. Section 1225(b)(1)

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)

and its companion regulations, two classes of aliens are subject to expedited removal if an immigration officer determines they are inadmissible due to misrepresentation or lack of immigration papers: (1) aliens “arriving in the United States,” and (2) aliens “encountered within 14 days of entry without inspection and within 100 air miles of any U.S. international land border.”2

See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) & (iii) ; Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 Fed Reg. 48877–01 (Aug. 11, 2004).3 If an alien falls into one of these two classes, and she indicates to the immigration officer that she fears persecution or torture if returned to her country, the officer “shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer” to determine if she “has a credible fear of persecution [or torture].” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) & (B)(ii)

; 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d). The statute defines the term “credible fear of persecution” as “a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 1158 of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(3) (“An alien will be found to have a credible fear of torture if the alien shows that there is a significant possibility that he or she is eligible for withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.”).

Should the interviewing asylum officer determine that the alien lacks a credible fear of persecution (i.e., if the officer makes a “negative credible fear determination”), the officer orders the removal of the alien “without further hearing or review,” except by an IJ as discussed below. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(I)

. The officer is then required to “prepare a written record” that must include “a summary of the material facts as stated by the applicant, such additional facts (if any) relied upon by the officer, and the officer's analysis of why, in the light of such facts, the alien has not established a credible fear of persecution.” Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(II). Next, the asylum officer's supervisor reviews and approves the negative credible fear determination, after which the order of removal becomes “final.” 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(7) ; id. § 208.30(e)(7). Nevertheless, if the alien so requests, she is entitled to have an IJ conduct a de novo review of the officer's negative credible fear determination, and “to be heard and questioned by the [IJ] as part of this review. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42(d). Assuming the IJ concurs in the asylum officer's negative credible fear determination, [t]he [IJ]'s decision is final and may not be appealed,” and the alien is referred back to the asylum officer to effect her removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A).4

B. Section 1252
Section 1252 of Title 8

defines the scope of judicial review for all orders of removal. This statute narrowly circumscribes judicial review for expedited removal orders issued pursuant to § 1225(b)(1). It provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... the application of [§ 1225(b)(1) ] to individual aliens, including the [credible fear] determination made under [§ 1225(b)(1)(B) ].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii). Moreover, except as provided in § 1252(e), the statute 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • Grace v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 17, 2020
    ...review in all federal district courts. See § 1252(e)(3), (4), (5) ; see also Thuraissigiam , 140 S.Ct. at 1967–71 ; Castro v. DHS , 835 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 2016).4 The alien appealed to the BIA after having been ordered removed by an immigration judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b).5 As part ......
  • Uecker v. U.S. Forest Serv.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • February 28, 2019
    ...to the United States . . . ."); U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 544 (1950); Castro v. United States Dep't of Homeland Security, 835 F.3d 422, 442-43 (3d Cir. 2016). However, even aside from this plenary power argument, the Court finds that Defendants' impoundment regulatio......
  • Lopez v. Sessions
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 12, 2018
    ...the right to be free from "inhumanetreatment," such as "indefinite, hearingless detention." See Pet.; Castro v. U.S. Dep't Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422, 449 n.32 (3d Cir. 2016); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693-94; Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1374 (5th Cir. 1987). The Court agrees.......
  • Ruderman v. Kolitwenzew
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • May 12, 2020
    ...(at least without some kind of showing that they are likely to flee or harm the community)"); see also Castro v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422, 449 n.32 (3d Cir. 2016) ("We doubt ... that Congress could authorize, or that the Executive could engage in, the indefinite, hearingles......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Collateral Damage: Non-debtor Recovery for Bad Faith Involuntary Bankruptcy Petitions
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 35-1, March 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...U.S. 557 (1968); Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987); Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003).217. Rosenberg, 835 F.3d at 422.218. Johnson, supra note 76.219. Id.220. Tristin K. Green, Comment, Complete Preemption - Removing the Mystery from Removal, 86 Cal. L. Re......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT