Opinion
Civil Action 24-1261 (UNA)
09-12-2024
JAN ABRAHAM NEL, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), and a motion to amend (ECF No. 3), which the Court treats as a supplement to the habeas petition. The Court GRANTS the application, DENIES the motion, and DENIES the petition without prejudice.
Petitioner, a native of Namibia and citizen of South Africa, has been in custody pending deportation pursuant to a removal order issued August 1, 2023. See Pet. (ECF No. 1) at 1-2, 4; id., Ex. A (ECF No. 1-2) at 3 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his appeal on January 18, 2024. See id. at 2, 5. In this action, petitioner asks that this Court “[r]elease [him] to the United States” from his current detention at the El Paso Processing Center in El Paso, Texas, see id. at 6-7, to “honer [sic] [his] application N400” for naturalization, id. at 7, and, presumably, to bar his removal from the United States, see generally Supp. (ECF No. 3). This Court cannot grant any of the relief petitioner demands.
The Court presumes that petitioner is referring to an Application for Naturalization, USCIS Form N-400.
A federal district court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner's challenge to the removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“[A] petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”); see Nel v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. PE:21-cv-00036-DC, 2021 WL 9494504, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 3, 2021) (stating that “the District Courts are divested of jurisdiction over § 2241 petitions attacking removal orders”); see also Uranga v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 527 F.Supp.3d 10, 1920 (D.D.C. 2020) (denying motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin plaintiff's removal from the United States because “the Court lacks jurisdiction to . . . intervene in the removal process”). Rather, petitioner's challenge to the removal order should be brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Vetcher v. Sessions, 316 F.Supp.3d 70, 76 (D.D.C. 2018) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) “streamline all issues arising from removal proceedings into a petition for review that must be filed with a court of appeals after a final order of removal from the BIA”). And petitioner's demand for release from custody “is certainly cognizable through the writ of habeas corpus . . . [b]ut that remedy is not available to him in Washington, as a civil detainee must file such application in the district court for the district where he is in custody,” id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis removed), that is, the Western District of Texas.
An Order is issued separately.