Singh v. Warden Pike County Correctional Facility, 695 F. App'x 642

Harjit Singh admitted he entered the U.S. without inspection on March 3, 2015, was apprehended almost immediately by Border Patrol, and detained.
Singh claimed a credible fear of persecution/torture but both an asylum officer and an immigration judge found he did not meet the credible-fear standard.
The immigration judge ordered Singh removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
Singh filed an emergency habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking district-court review of the negative credible-fear determination.
The District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) limits habeas review of § 1225(b)(1) determinations to only certain narrow questions that did not include the merits of the credible-fear finding.
On appeal Singh argued § 1252’s jurisdictional bar to merits habeas review violates the Suspension Clause; the Third Circuit relied on Castro and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1252(e)(2) permitting only narrow habeas review of § 1225(b)(1) determinations violates the Suspension Clause	Singh: statute unlawfully suspends habeas because it bars merits review of his credible-fear claim	Gov: § 1252 lawfully limits habeas review to statutory categories and does not violate the Suspension Clause	Court: Affirmed; under Castro the statute does not violate the Suspension Clause for aliens apprehended soon after unlawful entry challenging negative credible-fear findings

Castro v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016) (held § 1252 does not violate the Suspension Clause when it bars merits habeas review of negative credible-fear determinations for aliens apprehended shortly after unlawful entry)