Jurisdictional Limits on Judicial Review of Expedited Removal Orders
Shunaula v. Holder, 732 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2013).
Summary of the Substance and Outcome:
This case examines whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review or challenge an expedited removal order issued by immigration authorities. The petitioner, an Ecuadorian national, attempted to reenter the United States illegally after being previously subjected to expedited removal. He argued that the 1997 expedited removal order violated his due process rights. The central issue was whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows federal courts to hear a collateral attack on the validity of an expedited removal order as part of a later removal proceeding.
Outcome of the Case:
- Jurisdictional Bar:
- The INA precludes judicial review of expedited removal orders, including collateral attacks, except under narrow circumstances specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e).
- The petitioner’s claims did not meet these exceptions, as his challenge was specific to his case and not a systemic challenge to the expedited removal process.
- Due Process Arguments Rejected:
- The petitioner’s claims of due process violations during his expedited removal proceedings, including lack of legal counsel and failure to understand proceedings conducted in English, were deemed outside the court’s jurisdiction to address.
- No Exception Under Mendoza-Lopez:
- The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, which permits judicial review of removal orders used to establish elements of criminal offenses.
- The court clarified that the expedited removal order was not being used in a criminal context, but only as the basis for inadmissibility.
Facts of the Case
1997 Expedited Removal:
- The petitioner attempted to enter the U.S. at the Miami airport using a valid tourist visa but was found carrying counterfeit green and Social Security cards.
- Immigration officers issued an expedited removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) for fraud or misrepresentation and returned him to Ecuador the next day.
Reentry and New Proceedings:
- Four months later, the petitioner illegally reentered the U.S., where he lived for over a decade.
- In 2007, immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings, citing his inadmissibility based on prior expedited removal and illegal reentry.
Petitioner’s Argument:
- The petitioner claimed his expedited removal in 1997 violated due process because:
- He had a valid visa.
- He was not informed of his rights, including the right to legal counsel.
- He signed documents in English, a language he did not understand.
Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA):
- Both the IJ and the BIA ruled against the petitioner, holding that they lacked jurisdiction to revisit or invalidate the 1997 expedited removal order.
Analysis by the Court:
Statutory Jurisdiction Limits:
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A), federal courts are barred from reviewing individual determinations made in expedited removal proceedings or claims “arising from or relating to” such orders.
- The exceptions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) allow only limited habeas review (e.g., whether the individual is an alien or was ordered removed) or systemic challenges to the expedited removal system itself.
Collateral Challenges Not Allowed:
- The court ruled that the petitioner’s challenge, although framed as part of a later removal order, was a direct collateral attack on the original expedited removal.
- The court lacked jurisdiction to consider such claims under § 1252(a)(2)(A).
Systemic vs. Individual Challenges:
- The court emphasized that systemic challenges to the expedited removal system must be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The petitioner’s case did not meet this standard because it targeted the specific circumstances of his expedited removal.
Due Process Claims:
- While acknowledging the petitioner’s complaints about procedural deficiencies, the court noted that Congress deliberately limited judicial review of expedited removal orders.
- Due process claims related to such orders fall outside the scope of reviewable issues.
Conclusion:
The Second Circuit held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review or revisit expedited removal orders, even in the context of later removal proceedings. The decision reaffirms the strict statutory limits on judicial review of expedited removal, leaving individuals with little recourse to challenge procedural defects unless their case meets the narrow exceptions in the INA.
This case highlights the rigidity of expedited removal procedures and the limited avenues for redress available to individuals, even when they allege significant procedural or due process violations during the expedited removal process.
Let’s Get Started
Your legal challenges deserve personalized attention and innovative solutions. Contact Oware Justice Advocates PC today for a consultation and take the first step toward resolution and peace of mind.
355 South Teller Street, Suite 204,
Lakewood, CO 80226
(Visits to the office are strictly by appointment only)
303-514-6589
