Walter A. Gallegos Orellana v. Warden E. Emmerich and Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Summary

The court dismissed in part and otherwise denied a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the denial of First Step Act time credits and the legality of an expedited removal order. It held that federal prisoners subject to a final removal order are statutorily ineligible to apply First Step Act time credits and that district courts lack jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders, subject to narrow statutory exceptions. The court also rejected the petitioner’s Suspension Clause argument and ordered the case closed.

Holdings

1. A federal prisoner who is the subject of a final order of removal is statutorily ineligible to apply First Step Act time credits toward prerelease custody or early transfer to supervised release. The court therefore could not order the warden to apply those credits.
2. District courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review challenges to expedited removal orders. Judicial review of an order of removal lies exclusively in the appropriate court of appeals, subject only to the narrow exceptions in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2).
3. The Suspension Clause does not confer district-court jurisdiction to review an expedited removal order or to obtain relief from removal where Congress has provided the statutory review mechanism in the courts of appeals.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a federal prisoner subject to a final order of removal may have First Step Act time credits applied toward prerelease custody or early transfer to supervised release.
2. Whether a district court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review the legality of an expedited removal order issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
3. Whether the Suspension Clause provides district-court habeas jurisdiction to review an expedited removal order or otherwise obtain relief from removal.

Disposition

other