SINGH v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-03No. No. 19-71887

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the court lacks authority to review an immigration judge's denial of a motion to reopen a credible fear determination.

A petitioner sought judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that had dismissed his appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner's underlying claim involved challenging an immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen a credible fear determination. The court examined its own jurisdiction and concluded that federal appellate courts lack the authority to review immigration judge decisions denying motions to reopen credible fear proceedings, as Congress has restricted judicial review of expedited removal orders and related matters through the relevant statutory provisions.

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

Key issues

Whether circuit courts have jurisdiction to review denials of motions to reopen credible fear determinations
Interpretation of statutory restrictions on judicial review of expedited removal orders
Congressional intent regarding scope of appellate review in immigration matters

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that had dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, challenging an immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen a credible fear determination.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing the appeal of an Immigration Judges (“IJ”) decision for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner appealed the IJs denial of his motion to reopen his credible fear determination. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

“We determine our own jurisdiction de novo.” Pena v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 452, 455 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Bolanos v. Holder, 734 F.3d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 2013)). This court held in Singh v. Barr that it lacks jurisdiction over petitions seeking review of an IJs denial of a motion to reopen credible fear proceedings. 982 F.3d 778, 784 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Read together, [8 U.S.C.] §§ 1252(a)(2)(A), (D) and 1252(e) provide clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended to deprive circuit courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders and related matters affecting those orders, including underlying negative credible fear determinations ․”). Accordingly, the review Petitioner seeks is outside of our jurisdiction.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.