394 F.Supp.3d 1342
S.D. Fla.2019Background
- Petitioner Jimmy Stuar Diaz Del Cid, a Guatemalan national, was apprehended about an hour after entering the U.S. and placed in expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
- Petitioner expressed fear of return, had a credible-fear interview April 25, 2019, and an asylum officer issued a negative credible-fear determination on April 29/May 1, 2019.
- Petitioner requested review by an Immigration Judge (IJ); the IJ hearing was scheduled beyond seven days (May 13), the IJ initially found it untimely and lacking jurisdiction, then the Miami Asylum Office re-dated the worksheet and the IJ later conducted a de novo review (May 17) and affirmed the negative determination.
- Petitioner sought emergency habeas relief and a stay of removal, raising: (1) Suspension Clause challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), (2) due process violation from procedural timing/re-dating, and (3–4) APA challenges to the Miami Asylum Office and IJ actions.
- The Government argued the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and, alternatively, that petitioner’s claims fail on the merits.
- The district court denied the emergency stay, held it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1252(e)(2) and (5), rejected the Suspension Clause challenge given petitioner’s near‑immediate apprehension after entry, and also concluded petitioner would not likely prevail on due process or APA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review expedited removal / credible-fear process | Diaz argued procedural errors (untimely IJ review; re-dating) permit habeas review of his removal/credibility process | Gov't: §1252 bars judicial review of the credible-fear determination except the narrow categories in §1252(e)(2); petitioner admits alienage and removal order | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under §§1252(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1252(e)(2) and (5) |
| Suspension Clause challenge to §1252(e)(2) | Diaz contends the statutory limits on habeas violate the Suspension Clause | Gov't: statute is constitutional as applied because petitioner was apprehended immediately after entry and seeks initial admission relief | Court: Rejected challenge; following Boumediene/Castro, petitioner (apprehended within hours) cannot invoke Suspension Clause here |
| Due process (timing and IJ jurisdiction) | Untimely IJ review and re-dating deprived Diaz of due process and caused prejudice | Gov't: even if timing irregular, IJ conducted de novo review so no substantial prejudice; petitioner cannot show different outcome | Court: No substantial likelihood of success — petitioner failed to show prejudice from timing; due process claim fails |
| APA challenge to Miami Asylum Office and IJ actions | Re-dating the worksheet and IJ acceptance of jurisdiction were arbitrary, capricious, or procedurally improper | Gov't: actions were rational, aimed to provide a de novo hearing; review under the APA is highly deferential | Court: APA claims fail — no arbitrary and capricious action; rational basis existed and no substantial procedural error requiring reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016) (upholding limits on habeas review for aliens apprehended immediately after entry and treating such aliens as seeking initial admission)
- Osorio-Martinez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 893 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2018) (reaffirming Castro's central holding about initial-admission context and §1252(e)(2))
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (framework for evaluating Suspension Clause challenges and adequacy of habeas substitutes)