Alomaisi v. Decker

Background

Hazea Mohammed Senan Alomaisi, a citizen of Yemen, filed a petition seeking an order requiring federal government officers to return him from Yemen. He sought that relief while a motion to reopen his removal proceedings was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The petition invoked habeas relief and mandamus relief, meaning a court order requiring government officials to take a specified action.

Alomaisi’s motion to reopen was later denied on November 20, 2020. The respondents moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended that the petition be denied in full. Alomaisi objected to that recommendation.

Review of the Objections

The court found that Alomaisi’s purported factual objections did not specifically identify errors in Judge Cave’s factual findings. The court therefore overruled those objections. It also considered Alomaisi’s legal objections to the recommendation.

Jurisdictional Ruling

The court held that two provisions of the Real ID Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and 1252(g), stripped the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the relief Alomaisi sought. Section 1252(a)(5) makes a petition for review in an appropriate court of appeals the sole and exclusive means of judicial review of a removal order. Section 1252(g) generally bars courts from hearing claims arising from the government’s decision to begin removal proceedings, decide those proceedings, or carry out a removal order.

Applying binding Second Circuit precedent, the court explained that the jurisdictional bar depends on the substance of the requested relief, not the label placed on the claim. Because Alomaisi sought to be returned to the United States and protected from detention or removal while his motion to reopen and any appeals were pending, the court agreed that he was directly challenging his removal order. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the petition.

The court also rejected Alomaisi’s reliance on a prior Second Circuit decision that had been vacated by the Supreme Court. It stated that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision and the vacated precedent did not support jurisdiction in this case. The court further stated that one constitutional argument was waived because Alomaisi had not raised it before the magistrate judge.

Alternative Mootness Ruling

The court stated that, even if it had jurisdiction, the petition would be moot. A case is moot when the dispute is no longer active or the parties no longer have a legally recognizable interest in the result. Because the Board of Immigration Appeals had already ruled on the motion to reopen, the requested return to the United States pending that proceeding was no longer available.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled Alomaisi’s objections, adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in full, and dismissed the petition. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.