Singh v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
2:19-cv-01873
W.D. Wash.Jun 12, 2020Background
- Jasvir Singh entered the U.S. without inspection on May 22, 2019, and was detained by ICE.
- An asylum officer issued a negative credible fear determination on July 10, 2019; an immigration judge affirmed that determination on August 12, 2019, and ICE returned the case for removal.
- Singh filed a habeas petition in the Fifth Circuit that was dismissed; he later filed this suit in the Western District of Washington under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of the credible-fear and expedited removal decisions.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the Immigration and Nationality Act bars judicial review of expedited removal and credible-fear determinations.
- The district court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied Singh’s second emergency motion for a stay of removal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction under the APA to review expedited removal and negative credible-fear determinations | Singh: APA provides review of agency malfeasance and permits challenge to the credible-fear and expedited removal process | Government: INA §1252(a)(2)(A) expressly precludes judicial review of determinations under §1225(b)(1); APA cannot override that statutory bar | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; APA review precluded by INA |
| Whether Singh may obtain habeas relief in this district instead of APA review | Singh did not press a habeas claim in response to the motion to dismiss | Government: Singh cannot recast claims to avoid statutory bar; habeas would be the proper remedy but not here | Court: Did not reach merits; noted Singh did not argue habeas in response and that habeas in this district would be improper because Singh is detained in Louisiana |
| Whether a stay of removal was warranted | Singh: Sought emergency stay/reconsideration to prevent removal while claims are litigated | Government: Injunctive relief improper because court lacks jurisdiction to review the underlying determinations | Court: Denied second emergency stay as moot after dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (2004) (standard for Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack and presumption of lack of jurisdiction)
- Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965 (2009) (Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional principles)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts possess only the jurisdiction authorized by Constitution and statute)
- In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981 (2008) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction)
- City of L.A. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 22 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (distinguishing facial jurisdictional attacks and factual inquiries on Rule 12(b)(1))
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993) (APA review unavailable where statute precludes judicial review)