Singh v. Wolf
5:20-cv-00086
S.D. Miss.Jun 16, 2020Background
- Petitioner Manpreet Singh, an Indian national detained at Adams County Detention Center, entered the U.S. without inspection on May 17, 2019 and was placed in expedited removal after Border Patrol custody near Calexico, California.
- Singh claimed asylum based on membership in the Mann Party; he underwent a credible-fear interview on June 10, 2019, which an asylum officer denied.
- Singh sought review by an immigration judge; the IJ affirmed the asylum officer’s findings.
- Singh filed a habeas petition challenging his expedited removal order and requested a stay of removal pending adjudication, asserting the asylum officer failed to follow regulations and seeking a new asylum hearing.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying the emergency motion to stay removal, concluding the court likely lacks jurisdiction to review the expedited removal decision and that the stay factors weigh against relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over expedited removal (§1252(e)(2)) | Singh seeks district-court review of his expedited removal order and a new asylum hearing. | §1252(e)(2) limits review to narrow, statutory grounds; court lacks jurisdiction to review merits of admissibility or asylum eligibility. | Denied — court likely lacks jurisdiction under §1252(e)(2). |
| Likelihood of success on asylum merits | Asylum officer failed to follow/apply regulations; Singh likely entitled to relief. | Even if procedural errors alleged, jurisdictional bar prevents merits review here. | Denied — petitioner failed to show strong likelihood of success given jurisdictional limits. |
| Suspension Clause challenge | §1252(e)(2) and related limits violate the Suspension Clause, entitling petitioner to habeas review. | Circuit and district precedent reject Suspension Clause escape from statutory limits on review. | Denied as unlikely to succeed; court followed precedent rejecting Suspension Clause claim. |
| APA / CAT as jurisdictional basis | APA review or CAT obligations provide a basis for judicial review of the removal decision. | Statutes preclude APA review where judicial review is limited; §1252(a)(4) limits CAT claims review here. | Denied — APA and CAT do not overcome the statutory bar to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351 (2009) (injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy; stay standard discussion)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay-of-removal factors and public interest considerations)
- Brumme v. I.N.S., 275 F.3d 443 (2001) (limits on judicial review of expedited removal under §1252)
- Solis-de Patino v. Pitts, 823 F. Supp. 2d 457 (2011) (no review of admissibility or entitlement to relief in expedited removal)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (1996) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge recommendations)
- Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 (1926) (stay is not a matter of right even if irreparable injury might result)