Harjit Singh v. Warden Pike County Correctiona, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: SMITH, Chief Judge, JORDAN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. Judge: SMITH Authoring.

Case: 16-1017

Document: 003112646479

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 16-1017
_____________
HARJIT SINGH,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN PIKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;
DIRECTOR THOMAS DECKER, Philadelphia Office, USICE;
SARAH R. SALDANA; SECRETARY UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 1-15-cv-02494
District Judge: The Honorable John E. Jones, III
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 23, 2017
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: June 8, 2017)

Case: 16-1017

Document: 003112646479

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

_____________________
OPINION
_____________________
SMITH, Chief Judge.
By his own admission, Petitioner-Appellant Harjit Singh “first came to the
United States on March 3, 2015, and entered through Texas without inspection[],
and was almost immediately apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol, and detained.”
10A (Pet.) ¶ 10.

After Singh failed to prove to an asylum officer and an

immigration judge that he had a credible fear of persecution or torture.1 Singh was
ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
On December 29, 2015, Singh filed an emergency petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the District Court should
review the Immigration Judge’s finding of negative credible fear.

Section

1252(e)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code limits habeas review of
determinations made under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) to “(A) whether the petitioner is
an alien, (B) whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, and
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.


1

“[I]f the interviewing asylum officer, or the [immigration judge] upon de novo
review, concludes that the alien possesses a credible fear of persecution or torture,
the alien is referred for non-expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a, ‘during which time the alien may file an application for asylum and
withholding of removal.’ 8 C.F.R. § 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(B).” Castro v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422, 426 n.4 (3d Cir. 2016).
2

Case: 16-1017

Document: 003112646479

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

(C) whether the petitioner can prove . . . that the petitioner is [a lawful permanent
resident], has been admitted as a refugee . . . or has been granted asylum.” Singh’s
attempt to have the District Court review the credible fear determination did not fit
in any of those categories. Accordingly, on January 4, 2016, the District Court
denied Singh’s petition for habeas corpus for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Singh appeals, arguing that, because 8 U.S.C. § 1252 prevents courts from
reviewing the merits of his habeas petition, the statute unconstitutionally “violates
the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, and must be stricken.” Singh Br. 15.
In Castro v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 835 F.3d 422
(3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 1366739 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2017), we held that
8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not violate the Suspension Clause when it deprives courts of
jurisdiction to review the merits of habeas petitions filed by aliens who were
“apprehended within hours of surreptitiously entering the United States” and who
sought to prevent their removals by challenging negative credible fear
determinations. Castro, 835 F.3d at 428, 445–49.2 Singh is in the same factual
circumstances as were the Castro petitioners. Therefore, under Castro, § 1252 did

2

On October 31, 2016, the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, at our direction, wrote to counsel directing them “to file
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Castro . . . on or before November
28, 2016.” The Government filed a supplemental brief stating that this case was
indistinguishable from Castro. Singh’s counsel did not file a supplemental brief.
3

Case: 16-1017

Document: 003112646479

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

not violate the Suspension Clause when it deprived the District Court of subjectmatter jurisdiction over Singh’s habeas petition. Accordingly, we will affirm.

4