Ramos v. James
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:21-cv-07881
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramos v. James, Judge Swain transferred Ramos’s removal challenge to the Second Circuit because the district court lacked jurisdiction.
David Ramos’s challenge to his removal order was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the district court did not decide the challenge’s merits.
What happened
In Ramos v. James, David Ramos, who was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and represented himself, challenged a final immigration removal order. He raised constitutional arguments and claimed U.S. citizenship by birth.
The court explained that federal district courts cannot review removal orders under the REAL ID Act. Such challenges, including constitutional claims, must be filed as petitions for review in the appropriate federal appeals court. The court determined that transfer was appropriate because the petition appeared potentially timely under the prison-mailbox rule.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and closed the district-court case. She also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. James · No. 7:21-cv-07881
- Cathy Seibel
- Sept. 27, 2021
Background
David Ramos, who was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a November 2, 2020 final order of removal issued by an immigration judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that order on August 16, 2021. Ramos raised constitutional arguments and claimed that he was a U.S. citizen by birth.
Jurisdiction and Transfer
The court held that the REAL ID Act prevents federal district courts from reviewing orders of removal or requests to stay removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, a petition for review filed in the appropriate federal court of appeals is the sole and exclusive method of judicial review. That requirement also applies when a person raises constitutional claims or questions of law.
The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Ramos’s challenge. It then considered whether transfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was appropriate. A petition for review generally must be filed within 30 days after the final removal order. Although the mailing envelope was postmarked September 16, 2021—one day after the apparent September 15 deadline—the court assumed, for purposes of the order, that Ramos had placed the petition in the prison mailing system before September 16. Under the prison-mailbox rule, a prisoner’s filing is treated as filed when he places it in the prison mailing system. Because the court could not conclude that the petition was untimely, it found transfer appropriate.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and closed the district-court case. It did not decide the merits of Ramos’s constitutional arguments, citizenship claim, or challenge to the removal order. The court also certified that any appeal from its order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.