AMIRI v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-07-28No. No. 20-30435

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Amiri's habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed because the REAL ID Act makes petition for review to the court of appeals the exclusive remedy for challenging removal orders.

Ali Amiri, an Iranian national, filed a habeas corpus petition in district court challenging his removal order and detention. He argued his arrest was unlawful, his detention lacked basis, he was denied an opportunity to contest detention, and his property was unlawfully seized. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and Amiri appealed, seeking to have his removal order vacated and requesting appellate review.

The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal. Under the REAL ID Act, petitions for review to the court of appeals are the exclusive means for challenging removal orders—habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 cannot be used for this purpose. Because Amiri's claims fundamentally challenged the validity of his removal order, the district court properly lacked jurisdiction. The court noted that Amiri had filed the habeas petition after it previously denied his motion for a stay of removal, and cautioned that further frivolous filings could result in sanctions.

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

Key issues

Whether habeas corpus petitions may be used to challenge immigration removal orders
Scope of REAL ID Act's exclusive remedy provision
Jurisdiction of district courts in immigration detention cases

Procedural posture

Amiri appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his removal order and detention.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Ali Amiri, a native and citizen of Iran, appeals the district courts dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. In his § 2241 petition, Amiri challenged his detention pursuant to a final order of removal and the order of removal itself, arguing that he was unlawfully arrested, that there was no basis for his detention, that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to contest his detention, and that immigration officials unlawfully seized his property. On appeal, Amiri argues that his order of removal should be vacated and that this court should assume jurisdiction over his appeal.

Pursuant to the REAL ID Act, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, ․ a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Because Amiri is contesting the validity of his order of removal, the district court did not err in dismissing the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Rosales v. Bureau of Immigr. & Customs Enft, 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005).

Amiri has resorted to a § 2241 petition because we previously denied his motion for a stay of removal in January 2021. Since we denied him a stay, Amiri has made multiple meritless filings attempting to avoid our ruling. We warn Amiri that future frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to our jurisdiction may result in the imposition of sanctions.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.