Doe v. Wolf

Background

Sean B., identified by the court by his first name and last initial, filed a habeas petition—a request for judicial review through a special legal remedy—under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 1651. He sought a stay of a valid removal order so that claims in his second motion to reopen could later be considered by a federal appeals court. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied that second motion on March 23, 2020.

In a prior related proceeding, a federal district judge granted Sean B.’s habeas request and temporarily stayed removal while an earlier motion to reopen was pending. The Board later denied that motion. Sean B. sought review in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where that proceeding remained pending when he filed this case. The Eleventh Circuit had also denied his request for a stay of removal.

Jurisdiction over the removal challenge

The respondents argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, meaning legal authority, to consider the petition. The court held that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and (g) require both direct and indirect challenges to removal orders to be brought in the appropriate court of appeals. Although Sean B. characterized his request as seeking only a stay rather than cancellation of the removal order, the court ruled that a stay would make the removal order ineffective and therefore constituted an indirect challenge.

The court also rejected Sean B.’s argument that applying Section 1252 would violate the Suspension Clause, the constitutional protection against improperly eliminating access to habeas review. The court reasoned that the Board had ruled on both motions to reopen and that Sean B. could seek review of both decisions in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It concluded that this appellate-review process was an adequate and effective substitute for habeas review. The court did not decide the respondents’ argument that the Suspension Clause did not apply because Sean B. was not seeking release from custody.

Notice request and disposition

Sean B. also requested 72 hours’ notice of any adverse immigration action. The respondents had given notice of a removal date of April 20, 2020, and represented at oral argument that any changed date would be later and that Sean B. would receive notice. The court ruled that this request was moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute requiring a ruling.

The court stated that it had considered all arguments and that arguments not specifically addressed were moot or without merit. It dismissed the petition and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge John G. Koeltl signed the order.