Lin v. Borgen

Background

Jianmei Lin had been ordered to leave the United States after immigration proceedings that began in 1992. An immigration judge granted him voluntary departure and denied other relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal in 1996, and Lin did not leave the country.

In 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Lin under the removal order but released him under an Order of Supervision after the Chinese Consulate General in New York declined to issue travel documents. The release required him to follow conditions, including reporting to ICE and helping obtain travel documents.

Lin later pursued immigration-related applications based on his marriage to a lawful permanent resident. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved his application for permission to reapply for admission after removal in March 2025 and approved a family-based petition in June 2023. Lin filed an application for a provisional unlawful-presence waiver in April 2025; that application remained pending.

On July 8, 2025, ICE arrested Lin during a scheduled check-in, revoked his supervised release, and detained him because the agency believed it could obtain travel documents. ICE submitted a new travel-document application to the Chinese Embassy after obtaining Lin’s birth certificate. Lin then filed this petition asking the court to stop his removal and release him while his waiver application was pending.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Lin’s filing as a petition asking a court to review his detention and removal. It explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 gives federal district courts very limited authority over final removal orders. Under that statute, a petition for review in the appropriate federal appeals court is the exclusive method for reviewing a removal order, and legal or factual issues arising from removal proceedings must generally be raised in that appeals-court review. The statute also bars courts from hearing claims arising from the government’s decision to execute a removal order.

The court concluded that Lin’s requested relief would either directly challenge the removal order or prevent ICE from executing it. The court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction under § 1252(g). Alternatively, it held that any challenge to ICE’s legal authority or to legal or factual questions arising from the removal process had to be brought in the Second Circuit under §§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9).

The court considered Lin’s reliance on an earlier decision that had allowed a person to remain in the United States while pursuing a provisional waiver. It found that decision minimally persuasive and distinguishable. The court noted that Lin had already applied for the waiver and completed the stated steps for seeking it. It further stated that the waiver decision was discretionary and could be made whether Lin remained in the United States or not. The court also described Lin’s policy argument—that the government should not remove people while they pursue this process—as outside the court’s authority to decide.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied the petition because the court lacked jurisdiction. The Order to Show Cause, which temporarily restrained the respondents from transferring Lin outside the Southern District of New York, remained in effect through 11:59 p.m. on August 1, 2025, so Lin could seek relief from the Second Circuit. The court stated that its order did not prevent Lin from seeking relief in another forum or later challenging continued detention if it became unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. The Clerk was directed to close the case.