Aguirre Cuerro, Gabriel v. Emmerich, E., 3:24-cv-00819

Gabriel Aguirre Cuerro, a Colombian citizen, is incarcerated at FCI-Oxford for federal cocaine-related convictions, serving a 144-month sentence.
On October 15, 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued an expedited order of removal against Aguirre Cuerro under INA § 235(b)(1).
Aguirre Cuerro filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the removal order, arguing the order was void because he had been paroled into the U.S. and present for over two years before the removal.
He claims the removal order affected his sentence length, making him ineligible for First Step Act time credits.
The government moved to dismiss, citing the REAL ID Act, which directs all challenges to removal orders to the appellate courts, stripping the district court of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over removal order challenge	Cuero argues district court can hear his claim due to alleged wrong application of expedited removal	Government argues REAL ID Act establishes exclusive appellate review; district court lacks jurisdiction	Court agrees with government; dismisses for lack of jurisdiction
Applicability of expedited removal procedures	Cuero claims § 1225(b)(1) doesn't apply because he was paroled in and present for over two years	Government contends terms of parole and presence don't exempt him from the statutory definition of "alien" subject to removal	Court finds Cuero is an "alien" under the INA and eligible for expedited removal
Eligibility for First Step Act time credits	Cuero asserts removal order improperly affected sentence calculation	Government says removal order excludes him from credits under statute	Court does not reach merits because it lacks jurisdiction
Exception to jurisdiction-stripping in § 1252(e)(2)	Cuero argues he qualifies for exception because he is not covered by expedited removal provision	Government argues exceptions are narrow and do not apply	Court finds exceptions inapplicable to Cuero

Padilla v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1209 (7th Cir. 2006) (District courts lack jurisdiction over challenges to administrative removal orders under the REAL ID Act)
Chen v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2006) (Habeas petitions challenging removal orders must be dismissed post-REAL ID Act; courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction)