Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Clemente HUERTA-JIMENEZ; Ermelinda Perez, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Chad F. WOLF, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Ronald D. Vitiello; William P. Barr, Attorney General; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Clemente Huerta-Jimenez and Ermelinda Perez appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Zavala v. Ives, 785 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioners’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138-40 (9th Cir. 2008) (habeas jurisdiction over expedited removal orders is limited to “to an inquiry over whether: ‘(A) the petitioner is an alien, (B) whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, and (C) whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence’ ” (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2))); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (courts generally lack jurisdiction to hear claims arising from the Attorney General's decision to commence proceedings); J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 2016) (no matter how a claim is framed, if it “challenges the procedure and substance of an agency determination that is inextricably linked to the order of removal, it is prohibited by section 1252(a)(5)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding constructive custody. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Petitioners’ contentions concerning the Suspension Clause are foreclosed by Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1969-71, 207 L.Ed.2d 427 (2020) (where petitioner “does not want simple release but, ultimately, the opportunity to remain lawfully in the United States” the relief requested falls outside the scope of the writ and the Suspension Clause argument fails).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-55420
Decided: December 08, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)