Narrative Opinion Summary
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a Nigerian national contesting his detention and the alleged existence of a removal order. The petitioner entered the U.S. on a student visa and was later ordered to voluntarily depart, which he claims to have complied with by leaving for Mexico. Despite this, the INS deemed the order as having converted to a deportation order, leading to his detention during a status adjustment interview following a marriage to a U.S. citizen. The district court initially transferred the case to the appellate court under the REAL ID Act, but the appellate court vacated this transfer, ruling that neither the REAL ID Act nor the relevant sections of 8 U.S.C. strip the district court of its jurisdiction. The court concluded that the petition did not challenge a removal order but instead contested the unconstitutional nature of his detention without a valid order. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case for further habeas proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing to determine compliance with the original voluntary departure order.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Madu's petition does not constitute a challenge to a removal order, thus § 1252(a)(5) does not apply, and the district court maintains jurisdiction.
Reasoning: Madu argues he left the U.S. by the deadline in the IJ’s voluntary departure order, asserting that this order did not convert into a removal order.
Jurisdictional Limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that § 1252(b)(9) does not remove jurisdiction over Madu’s petition, as it does not challenge a final removal order.
Reasoning: Section 1252(b)(9) restricts judicial review of any legal and factual questions related to the removal of an alien to the review of a final removal order.
Jurisdiction under the REAL ID Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Eleventh Circuit determined that Madu's habeas petition, contesting his detention rather than a removal order, is not subject to the REAL ID Act's jurisdictional transfer provisions.
Reasoning: The court determined that the Act did not apply, affirming the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241, thus allowing the case to proceed on its merits.
Scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that § 1252(g) does not bar judicial review of Madu's constitutional claims regarding detention, as it is narrowly interpreted to limit interference with prosecutorial discretion.
Reasoning: Section 1252(g) limits jurisdiction over claims arising from the Attorney General's decisions regarding the commencement and execution of removal orders but does not prohibit substantive legal review of those actions.