(“This Court, however, lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate Petitioner's challenge to the validity of the final order of removal” because “that authority lies exclusively with the appropriate court of appeals.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); Tostado v. Carlson, 481 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2007); Cruz Quiceno v. Segal, No. 23-cv-358 (NEB/DJF), 2023 WL 3855295, at *3 (D. Minn. Apr. 21, 2023), R. & R. adopted, 2023 WL 3853433 (D. Minn. June 6, 2023); Pina v. Martinez, No. 2:23-cv-1628 (KK), 2023 WL 9423314, at *2 (W.D. La. Dec. 11, 2023), R. & R. adopted, 2024 WL 314263 (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2024); Anyanwu v. Bd. of Immigr. Appeals, No. 20-cv-2475 (NEB/HB), 2021 WL 1609127, at *2 (D. Minn. Apr. 26, 2021)). III. NO EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NECESSARY.
Instead, that authority lies exclusively with the appropriate court of appeals. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5); Tostado v. Carlson, 481 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2007); Cruz Quiceno v. Segal, No. 23-cv-358 (NEB/DJF), 2023 WL 3855295, at *3 (D. Minn. Apr. 21, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 3853433 (D. Minn. June 6, 2023); Pina v. Martinez, No. 2:23-cv-1628, 2023 WL 9423314, at *2 (W.D. La. Dec. 11, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 314263 (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2024); Anyanwu v. Bd. of Immigr. Appeals, No. 20-cv-2475 (NEB/HB), 2021 WL 1609127, at *2 (D. Minn. Apr. 26, 2021). Petitioner may not challenge the constitutional validity of the submitted final order of removal in this District Court.
Rather, that authority lies solely with the appropriate circuit court of appeals. Quiceno v. Segal, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 989548, *6 (D. Minn. April 21, 2023) (citing U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5); Tostado v. Carlson, 481 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2007) ("[A] petition for review to the courts of appeal is the exclusive means of review of an administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion.");