United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
J. McConnell, Jr., United States District Judge.
Jermaine Neufville filed an original petition for habeas
corpus (ECF No. l) and an amended petition for habeas corpus
(ECF No. ll) each under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Neufville
claims that his arrest by the Department of Homeland Security
on January 16, 2018, based on the execution of a charging
document to initiate removal proceedings, was an unlawful
seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. ECF No. 11 at 3. Mr. Neufville
subsequently filed for emergency injunctive relief with this
Court requesting a stay of the order of his removal. ECF Nos.
Respondents moved to dismiss Mr. Neufville's habeas
petitions (ECF No. 12 and ECF No. 6 in 19-cv00348-JJM-LDA)
and oppose the request for emergency injunction relief (ECF
No. 19). They claim that this Court lacks jurisdiction under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101,
et. seq) (the "INA") to review the arrest
and pending removal of Mr. Neufville. ECF No. 12 at 5-10; ECF
No. 19 at 2-3. This Court agrees with the Respondents.
enacting the INA, Congress intended to "put an end to
the scattershot and piecemeal nature" of removal
proceedings by consolidating the review of legal and factual
questions into the administrative process, with judicial
review of those decisions vested exclusively in the courts of
appeals. Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration &
Customs Enft Div. of Dep't of Homeland Sec, 510
F, 3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2007). Section 1252(b)(9) of the INA
Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including
interpretation and application of constitutional and
statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or
proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States
under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial
review of a final order under this section. Except as
otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have
jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of Title 28
or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651
of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or
nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of
law or fact.
1252(a)(5) additionally states (emphasis added):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or
nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any
other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of
such title, 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, except as provided in subsection
(e) [judicial review of orders of aliens arriving in the U.S.
and certain other aliens who have not been admitted or
paroled]. For purposes of this chapter, in every provision
that limits or eliminates judicial review or jurisdiction to
review, the terms "judicialreview"and
"jurisdiction to review" include habeas corpus
review pursuant to section 2241 of Title 28, or any other
habeas corpus provision, sections 1361 and 1651 of such
title, and review pursuant to any other provision of law
(statutory or nonstatutory).
First Circuit has clarified that its review of removal orders
goes beyond reviewing the determination of removability but
"includes all matters on which the validity of the final
order is contingent." CanoSaldarriaga v.
Holder, 729 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation mark omitted).
accordance with the provisions of the INA, Mr.
Neufville's ability to receive judicial review of the
order of his removal (and all matters on which the validity
of that order is contingent) must be sought with an
appropriate court of appeals and not with this
Court. Because this Court lacks the jurisdiction
to review the order of Mr.
removal, his habeas petitions must be dismissed and his
requests for emergency injunctive relief denied. See
CanoSaldarriaga, 729 F.3d at 27.
reasons stated, the Respondents' Motions to Dismiss are
GRANTED (ECF No. 12 and EOF No. 6 in 19-cv00348-JJM-LDA) and
Petitioner's petitions for habeas corpus (ECF Nos. 1, 11)
are DISMISSED. Additionally, Petitioner's Motions for
Temporary Restraining Order are DENIED (ECF Nos. 3, 18).
Neufville also filed a Motion to Strike the Respondents'
Reply (pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f)). The Court finds this
request improper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) and thus DENIES