Ninth Circuit Reverses Habeas Grant to Immigration Detainee

The Ninth Circuit has reversed a habeas grant to a detainee in immigration custody because the detainee failed to name his immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where he was detained, as the respondent to his petition. The detainee had named the ICE Field Office Director, rather than the warden at Golden State Annex, as the respondent. In addition, because the Golden State Annex is physically located in the Eastern District of California, that was the proper district for filing habeas, not the Northern District, where the ICE Field Office is located.

The full text of Doe v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/29/23-15361.pdf

Third Circuit Transfers PFR to Sixth Circuit

The Third Circuit has determined that the Sixth Circuit is the proper appellate venue for a detained matter filed with the Cleveland Immigration Court, even though the immigration judge was sitting in Virginia, and the applicant was detained in Pennsylvania. “Therefore, in the context of remote proceedings or hearings, the physical locations of the IJ and other participants are not what dictates the answer to the question of where the proceedings occur. Instead, we agree with the First, Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits that ‘proceedings’ take place in the Immigration Court in which the proceedings began, unless there is a formal change of venue. Judicial venue under § 1252(b)(2) thus aligns with administrative venue.” The court, accordingly, transferred the petition for review to the Sixth Circuit,

the full text of Castillo v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/232123p.pdf

BIA Discusses Intersection of Venue, Choice of Law, and Administrative Control Court

The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated that choice of law is dependent upon venue in Immigration Court proceedings, and therefore, the controlling circuit law is not affected by a change in the administrative control court and will only change upon the granting of a motion to change venue.

The full text of Matter of M-N-I can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/4076.pdf

First Circuit Finds that Location of Administrative Control Court Defines Judicial Venue

The First Circuit has determined that the location of the administrative control court (i.e., where the charging document is filed) - absent an order for change of venue - dictates in which federal circuit appellate review lies.

The full text of Bazile v. Garland can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1767P-01A.pdf

Second Circuit Addresses Proper Venue of PFR for Detained Petitioner

The Second Circuit has determined that a detainee in Louisiana, whose Notice to Appear was filed with the Jena, Louisiana Immigration Court, should have petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit, even though the administrative control court (where documents were filed) and the Immigration Judge were in New York.

The full text of Sarr v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/badef993-7b32-42ae-827e-182eada348ec/7/doc/20-3836_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/badef993-7b32-42ae-827e-182eada348ec/7/hilite/

Fourth Circuit has Determined that PFR Can be Filed in Circuit Where IJ Sits Regardless of Where Noncitizen is Detained

The Fourth Circuit has determined that venue is proper in that circuit for a petition for review of a removal order when the presiding Immigration Judge was sitting at an adjudications center in Virginia, even though the non-citizen was detained in Louisiana, and the immigration court with administrative control was in Minnesota.

The full text of Herrera-Alcala v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201770.P.pdf

Third Circuit Addresses Jurisdiction over Denied Nationality Claim

The Third Circuit has determined that when a Circuit Court transfers a nationality claim to a District Court, and the District Court denies that claim, the Circuit Court that typically hears appeals from that District Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the denied nationality claim, not the Circuit Court which initiated the transfer.

The full text of Ricketts v. Attorney General can be found here:

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/163182p.pdf

Ninth Circuit Addresses Proper Venue and Jurisdiction in a Reinstatement Case

In an interesting procedural case, the petitioner was ordered removed in the Ninth Circuit, but later had her order reinstated in the Eleventh Circuit after illegally re-entering the United States.  An Immigration Judge in the Eleventh Circuit denied her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture based on the persecution she suffered as a transgender woman in Mexico.  The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirmed, and the petitioner appealed the Board's decision to the Ninth Circuit.  Though the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that venue was proper in the Eleventh Circuit, it also held that improper venue did not strip its jurisdiction to hear the case.  It further determined that the interests of justice were not served by transferring the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, as it had already been fully briefed at the Ninth Circuit and the petitioner may have suffered legitimate confusion when she filed her petition for review in the Ninth Circuit, given that her initial asylum claim was denied in the Ninth Circuit and her in absentia order was issued in the Ninth Circuit.

The full text of Bibiano v. Lynch can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/19/12-71735.pdf

Tenth Circuit Issues a Decision Addressing Proper Venue for a Petition for Review

Lee was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Louisiana (part of the Tenth Circuit), but his case was heard via televideo equipment by an Immigration Judge in Dallas, Texas (part of the Fifth Circuit).  Lee was physically transported to Dallas for his final hearing.  When his case was denied by both Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, Lee filed a Petition for Review with the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit summarily transferred the Petition for Review to the Tenth Circuit, who in today's decision, transferred it back, finding that the proper venue in a detention case is the jurisdiction in which the Immigration Judge sits, rather than the jurisdiction in which the detention center resides.

The full text of Lee v. Holder can be found here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9573.pdf