Pena v. Lynch, No. 12-72099 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the IJ's affirmance of an asylum officer's negative credible fear determination. The court dismissed the petition for review based on lack of jurisdiction to review petitioner's challenge to his expedited removal proceedings pursuant to the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(A). The court concluded that because the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the statute retain some avenues of judicial review, limited though they may be, petitioner has not been unconstitutionally denied a judicial forum.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a petition for review of a decision by an immigration judge affirming an asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination in expedited removal proceedings. The panel held, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A), that this court lacks jurisdiction to review an IJ’s negative credible fear determination in expedited removal proceedings. The panel rejected petitioner’s argument that the jurisdiction-stripping provision unconstitutionally deprives him of any forum in which to bring a procedural due process challenge to the expedited removal proceedings, because there exist exceptions to the restriction on judicial review, including limited habeas proceedings to establish that an individual is not an alien, is a permanent resident, is a refugee or asylee, or was not the subject of an expedited removal order, and an avenue in criminal reentry proceedings to collaterally attack a prior removal order. PENA V. LYNCH 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.