Imran V Harper

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Muhammad Imran, a detained noncitizen, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his continued detention under Zadvydas v. Davis and asserting claims under the APA, Eighth Amendment, and other statutes. The district court denied his temporary restraining order and transferred the case to the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the TRO request, dismissed claims unrelated to detention for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for consideration of his detention-related claims under § 2241.

Issues

  • The court dismissed these claims for lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that they are not reviewable in a § 2241 petition. No independent jurisdictional basis was demonstrated for these constitutional challenges.
  • Imran's APA claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court noted he did not establish an independent basis for jurisdiction over these claims, and they are not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition under § 2241.
  • EAJA does not authorize attorney's fees for successful § 2241 motions. The court affirmed dismissal of Imran's EAJA request, noting he failed to demonstrate jurisdiction over claims unrelated to his continued detention.
  • The court addressed whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Imran's habeas petition challenging his detention. It concluded the district court erred by transferring the case, as it did have jurisdiction for detention-related claims under Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003).

Holdings

  • The court held that Imran's request for a stay of removal constitutes a challenge to the final removal order, which is outside the district court's jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(g). This aligns with precedents like In re Asemani (2025 WL 1823953) and Humphries v. Various Fed. USINS Emps. (164 F.3d 936, 1999).
  • The district court erred in transferring Imran's Due Process claim and Zadvydas challenge to this court because §2241 petitions challenging noncitizen detention fall under district court jurisdiction (Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 2003). However, the court affirmed the dismissal of his motion for a temporary restraining order, dismissed claims under the APA, Suspension Clause, Eighth Amendment, and INA for lack of jurisdiction, dismissed EAJA attorney's fees, and remanded for consideration of continued detention under §2241.
  • The court affirmed the dismissal of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), citing Barco v. Witte (65 F.4th 782, 2023), which clarifies EAJA does not cover successful §2241 habeas motions.

Remedies

  • The court dismissed claims under the Administrative Procedures Act, Suspension Clause, Eighth Amendment, and Immigration and Nationality Act for lack of jurisdiction, citing precedents like In re Asemani and Humphries v. Various Fed. USINS Emps.
  • The court affirmed the dismissal of the motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), as the district court had already denied the TRO and transferred the matter to this court, which concurred with that decision.
  • The case was remanded for consideration of the petitioner's continued detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, acknowledging the district court's jurisdiction over detention-related claims like the Due Process challenge and Zadvydas v. Davis.
  • The court dismissed the request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), referencing Barco v. Witte and noting that EAJA does not authorize fees for successful § 2241 motions.

Legal Principles

Federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims directly connected to decisions to commence removal proceedings or execute removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). The court affirmed that habeas corpus petitions challenging removal orders must be dismissed or transferred, and claims under the APA, Suspension Clause, and Eighth Amendment were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Precedent Name

  • In re Asemani
  • Demore v. Kim
  • Zimmerman v. Spears

Cited Statute

  • Immigration and Nationality Act
  • United States Constitution, Eighth Amendment
  • United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment, Due Process Clause
  • United States Code, Title 8, Section 1252(a)(5)
  • United States Code, Title 8, Section 1252(g)
  • Suspension Clause
  • United States Code, Title 28, Section 2241
  • Administrative Procedure Act
  • Equal Access to Justice Act

Judge Name

  • Duncan
  • Ramirez
  • Haynes

Passage Text

  • The government agrees that the district court had jurisdiction to hear Imran's Due Process claim and his claim under Zadvydas in his § 2241 petition because they directly challenge his continued detention.
  • Finding that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) because Imran was challenging his removal order via his § 2241 petition, the district court denied his motion for TRO and transferred the matter to this court.
  • We AFFIRM the dismissal of Imran's motion for a temporary restraining order, DISMISS his claims under the APA, the Suspension Clause, the Eighth Amendment, and the INA for lack of jurisdiction, DISMISS his request for attorney's fees under the EAJA, and REMAND for consideration of his continued detention under § 2241.