Singh v. USICE/DHS

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court grants petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This petition challenging an order of deportation or removal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A certificate of a ppealability shall not issue because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Conpedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Jack B. Weinstein, on 1/29/2013. (Barrett, C)

'/

FILED

u.s.o~$~~f!.K:s_o:~!CE Y.
0.N

* FEB 0 5 2013
.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

C:\Users\june\AppData\Locai\Temp\notesC7AOS6\Singh 13cv220_JBW~ deportation.dis. wpd

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
.

Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

-against13 CV 220 (JBW) ( / .
US ICE/DHS,
Respondent.

--------------------------------------~~------------------------)(
WEINSTEIN, United States District Judge:

Petitioner Parmjit Singh, appearing pro se and currently incarcerated at Washington
.

.

Correctional Facility, filed this petition seeking to "enjoin the defendants from executing an order of
deportation against him." Petition at 1. Petitioner alleges that the "deportation hearing was held on
October 5, 2010," that he has exhausted all administrative remedies, and that .the order will become
effective on March 14,2013. Petition at 2. The Court grants petitioner's request to proceed in forma
· pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The petition is dismissed as set forth below.

The REAL ID Act, enacted May 11, 2005, amended federal law to provide that
"[n]otwithinstanding any.other provision oflaw (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241
of Title 28, United States Code ... 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 entered or issued ·
under any provision of this chapter[.]" 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); see also Marguez-Almanzar v. I.N.S.,
418 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that "8 U.S:C. § 1252(a)(5) unequivocally eliminates
habeas corpus review of orders of removal" in district courts). This bar also applies to indirect
challenges to .the orderofremoval. See Delgado v. Ouarantillo, 643 F.3d 52,55 (2d Cir. 2011) (per
curiam) (holding that district court did not have jurisdiction over indirect challenges to a removal

order, including the denial of an I-212 application).

...

BROOKLYN OFFICE

------------------------------------------------------------~---){

PARMJIT SINGH,

c;

-

·~-~-~-------------

Since petitioner filed this petition challenging his order of deportation or removal after the
enactment of the REAL ID Act, the district court lacks jurisdiction over this petition.
Accordingly, this petition challenging an orderof deportation or removal is dismissed for
lack ofjurisdiction. A certificate of appealability shall not issue because petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good
faith and therefore in forma pauperis is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Conpedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

Y' ,

2013
Dated: January
Brooklyn, New York

2

__j
_