SAGATELIAN
v.
ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention and seeking release to pursue asylum. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that immigration removal orders can only be reviewed through petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals, not via habeas corpus in district court.
The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the removal order or grant the requested habeas corpus relief. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) and § 1252(b)(9), petition for review filed with the appropriate court of appeals is the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of removal orders, and habeas corpus under § 2241 is categorically excluded as a basis for district court review.
“Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact.”
Establishes the statutory bar to district court jurisdiction via habeas corpus in immigration removal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement following removal proceedings. An immigration judge denied his request for asylum …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [ECF No. 1]. The Court held a hearing on June 11, 2025, at which counsel for Petitioner and Respondents appeared. [See ECF No. 11]. The Court made rulings at the June 11, 2025, hearing, which are memorialized in this Order. To the extent the Court made additional or more detailed rulings on the record that are not memorialized in this written Order, those rulings are binding on the parties as set forth on the record. For the reasons stated at the hearing and herein, the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED.
In the Petition, Petitioner alleges that he “has not had the opportunity to file an [a]sylum [a]pplication, or to obtain a full and fair hearing on the merits of his case,” and therefore seeks his release from detention “to pursue asylum in this country.”[ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 9]. However, Petitioner's assertion that he has not had an opportunity to file for asylum or has not had an opportunity to be heard on his claim for asylum is false, as evidenced by the immigration judge's decision denying his request for asylum and ordering him removed to Russia. [ECF No. 10-4]. The immigration judge's decision was subsequently affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. [ECF No. 10-5 at 3]. Thus, the immigration judge's removal order is administratively final.
Additionally,8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) provides:
Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this chapter, except as provided in subsection (e).
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). “The petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings.”8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). Therefore, only the Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction to review the order of removal in this matter, and this Court does not have jurisdiction.
"Without subject matter jurisdiction, a court has no power to decide anything except that it lacks jurisdiction.” United States v. Salmona, 810 F. 3d 806, 810 (11th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 11, 2025.
cc: counsel of record