RICHARDSON v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-01No. No. 21-15402

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Richardson's habeas petition is affirmed.

Kaysha Dery Richardson appealed the dismissal of her federal habeas petition challenging her detention. The court found the district court properly dismissed her petition without prejudice because Richardson failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Additionally, the court lacked authority to review removal orders or grant relief from deportation, as federal law designates petitions for review filed with the court of appeals as the exclusive remedy for challenging removal decisions.

The court rejected Richardson's request for a bond hearing on appeal, explaining that such relief must first be pursued through an immigration judge, then the Board of Immigration Appeals, before habeas review becomes available. The court also declined to consider challenges to removability or re-entry bans because Richardson had not filed the required petition for review of the removal order with the appropriate court.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether habeas corpus jurisdiction exists to challenge final removal orders
Whether administrative remedies must be exhausted before filing habeas petitions
Whether the court could address bond hearing requests on appeal
Jurisdiction to review deportation and re-entry determinations

Procedural posture

Richardson appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging her detention.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Kaysha Dery Richardson appeals pro se from the district courts order dismissing her 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 dismissing without prejudice Richardsons habeas petition, where she failed to exhaust administrative remedies concerning her detention, see Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal without prejudice is proper where petitioner fails to exhaust administrative remedies), and the court lacked jurisdiction to review her removal order or claims for relief from removal, see Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (REAL ID Act “eliminated habeas jurisdiction, including jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (notwithstanding § 2241 or any other habeas provision, “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals ․ shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”).

To the extent Richardson, in her opening brief, raises a request for a bond hearing, the request is denied. See Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160 (eligible detainees may seek a bond hearing from an immigration judge, appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then seek review of the determination by filing a habeas corpus petition in district court).

We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to Richardsons removability, including any re-entry bans, because Richardson has not petitioned for review of any agency decision. See Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2016) (no jurisdiction to review a deportation decision where petitioner failed to timely petition for review of a final order of removal).

Richardsons request for judicial notice, raised in her opening brief, is granted. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may take “judicial notice of the agencys own records.”).

AFFIRMED.