Smith v. United States Customs & Border Protection
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 438
9th Cir.2014Background
- John Smith, a Canadian, arrived at the Oroville, Washington port of entry seeking admission to the U.S.
- CBP deemed him an intending immigrant and placed him in expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) due to unreported work plans in the U.S.
- Smith was found with undeclared cash, cigarettes, and promotional materials for a photography business in Arizona.
- He was removed to Canada the same day and barred from reentry for five years under expedited removal rules.
- Smith filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus about one year later, challenging the expedited removal order and asserting documentary-exemption and due process arguments.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the case reached the Ninth Circuit on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2241 habeas is available when petitioner is not in custody | Smith, non-custodial at filing, seeks §2241 relief | Government argues no custody, hence no §2241 jurisdiction | No §2241 jurisdiction; not in custody when petition filed |
| Whether §1252(e)(2) provides limited habeas review of expedited removal | Smith contends §1252(e)(2) permits review | Government argues limited review, but only under §1252(e)(2) bases | §1252(e)(2) grants limited review but does not permit broader collateral challenges |
| Whether Smith was 'ordered removed' under expedited removal to support §1252(e)(2) review | Smith argues he was not ordered removed under §1225 because of Canadian documentary exemptions | CBP did order removal under §1225; exemptions do not negate order | Smith was ordered removed under §1225; review limited to §1252(e)(2) bases is exhausted |
| Whether due process claims fall within the limited review | Procedural due process concerns raised | Knauff forecloses due process challenge to entry-denial procedures | Due process claims foreclosed within this limited review; authorities cited in Knauff apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2001) (habeas/in-custody requirements and removal context)
- Zegarra-Gomez v. INS, 314 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (limits of habeas relief post-removal; custody considerations)
- Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (scope of §1252(e)(2) review; three permissible bases)
- Li v. Eddy, 259 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2001) (no custody for limited review; vacated on reh'g as moot ( Ninth Cir. 2003))
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (Supreme Court 1950) (due process for aliens denied entry; procedural framework)