51 F.4th 1146
9th Cir.2022Background
- Mendoza-Linares, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. without inspection near Tecate, CA, was detained, and placed into expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
- At initial screening an order of removal was issued; after he expressed fear, an asylum officer conducted a credible-fear interview and issued a negative determination, citing the then‑operative Transit Bar (8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4)).
- A supervisory official approved the asylum officer’s form; Mendoza‑Linares obtained IJ review, and the IJ affirmed—finding the Transit Bar made him ineligible for asylum and separately denying reasonable fear for withholding/CAT.
- Mendoza‑Linares petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit, arguing the Transit Bar’s application deprived him of statutory and due‑process protections in § 1225’s credible‑fear process.
- The government argued the INA’s jurisdiction‑stripping provisions (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) and related provisions) bar appellate review of expedited removal and credible‑fear determinations.
- The panel majority dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Judge Graber dissented, arguing the court must hear a colorable constitutional claim when no other forum exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1252(a)(2)(A) permits court of appeals review of credible‑fear/expedited removal determinations | Mendoza‑Linares: statutory/due‑process rights under § 1225 were violated; court may review | Government: § 1252(a)(2)(A) (and related INA provisions) expressly bars review of individual determinations under § 1225(b)(1) | Held: § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (i) bar appellate review of the credible‑fear determination; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the § 1252(e) exceptions (habeas or D.C. district‑court challenges) preserve a forum or permit transfer | Mendoza‑Linares: exceptions allow review or transfer to an appropriate district court | Government: § 1252(e) only permits narrow habeas inquiry (identity, existence of § 1225 order, longstanding status claims) and time/venue limits; D.C. challenge windows missed | Held: § 1252(e) does not furnish a viable forum or permit transfer here—the habeas limits and timing rules preclude relief or transfer |
| Whether § 1252 permits review of “colorable constitutional claims” despite its text (clear‑statement/constitutional‑avoidance argument) | Mendoza‑Linares: long‑standing presumption preserves court review of colorable constitutional claims when no other forum exists | Government: REAL ID amendments and § 1252(a)(2)(D) show Congress expressly excluded § 1252(a)(2)(A) and § 1252(e) from the preservation rule | Held: The REAL ID text and structure make clear § 1252(a)(2)(A) and § 1252(e) preclude review of constitutional claims in expedited removal; Webster/St. Cyr‑style avoidance does not defeat that clear congressional choice |
| Whether denying all judicial review as applied here is unconstitutional | Mendoza‑Linares: facial/as‑applied constitutional problems (due process, suspension) | Government: arriving aliens lack constitutional due‑process rights re admission; Thuraissigiam rejected suspension‑clause challenge | Held: No constitutional infirmity as applied—arriving aliens lack protected due‑process interest in admission, and Thuraissigiam forecloses suspension‑clause challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020) (arriving aliens lack constitutional due‑process right to contest admissibility; habeas/suspension‑clause arguments rejected)
- Guerrier v. Garland, 18 F.4th 304 (9th Cir. 2021) (applies Thuraissigiam to bar appellate review of colorable constitutional claims in expedited removal)
- Singh v. Garland, 982 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2020) (§ 1252(a)(2)(A) bars judicial review of expedited removal orders, including credible‑fear merits)
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2021) (discusses Transit Bar as substantive rule limiting asylum eligibility)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (clear‑statement/construction to preserve habeas review of pure legal questions prior to congressional response)
- Calcano‑Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348 (2001) (similar canon preserving review of substantial constitutional challenges)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (clear statement rule: Congress must clearly preclude judicial review of constitutional claims)
- Guerrero‑Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (statutory interpretation/context for REAL ID amendments; guides analysis of § 1252)
- Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022) (discusses REAL ID changes to INA jurisdictional scheme and scope of § 1252)