“[A] court’s habeas jurisdiction does not extend to review of the claim that 24 an alien was wrongfully deprived of the administrative review permitted under the statute 25 and applicable regulations.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] court’s habeas jurisdiction does not extend to review of the claim that 24 an alien was wrongfully deprived of the administrative review permitted under the statute 25 and applicable regulations.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RYCHKOV VITALII, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3745-CAB-MSB
12 Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
[Doc. No. 1]
15
Respondents.
16
17
18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Rychkov Vitalii’s petition for a writ of
19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner, a citizen of
20 Russia, states that he has been held in custody since he entered the United States on
21 November 16, 2025. [Petition at 9.] On December 1, 2025, Petitioner alleges that he
22 received a negative credible fear determination from an asylum officer, which was then
23 reviewed and affirmed by an Immigration Judge on December 5, 2025. [Id.]
24 Although Respondents have not moved to dismiss this action, the Court “has an
25 independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] ha[s] subject matter jurisdiction.”
26 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
27 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
28 court must dismiss the action.”). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They
1 possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian
2 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
3 Petitioner alleges that the procedure leading to his order of removal was defective in
4 that the Immigration Judge who affirmed the negative credible fear determination
5 “incorrectly stated that [Petitioner] was speculating” about his political involvement. [Id.
6 at 6.] As such, Petitioner asks that this Court review the determination reached by the
7 asylum officer and affirmed by the Immigration Judge.
8 “In determining whether an alien has been ordered removed under section
9 1225(b)(1) of this title, the court’s inquiry shall be limited to whether such an order in fact
10 was issued and whether it relates to the petitioner. There shall be no review of whether the
11 alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.” 8 U.S.C.
12 § 1252(e)(5). Further, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) limits a district court’s review of any
13 determination made under section 1225(b)(1) to “determinations of . . . whether the
14 petitioner is an alien . . . was ordered removed under such section, and can prove by a
15 preponderance of the evidence” certain facts not at issue here. Accordingly, the Supreme
16 Court has explicitly held—on strikingly similar facts—that “courts may not review ‘the
17 determination’ that an alien lacks a credible fear of persecution.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec.
18 v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 112 (2020). Overwhelming Ninth Circuit precedent
19 likewise confirms that the limitations in § 1252(e) bar judicial review of the merits of the
20 determinations underlying an expedited removal order. See Mendoza-Linares v. Garland,
21 51 F.4th 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2022); Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 741 F.3d 1016,
22 1021 n.4, 1022 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077, 1082
23 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] court’s habeas jurisdiction does not extend to review of the claim that
24 an alien was wrongfully deprived of the administrative review permitted under the statute
25 and applicable regulations.”).
26 The extent of this Court’s habeas jurisdiction in reviewing an expedited removal
27 under § 1252(e)(2)(B) “is limited to determining ‘whether an immigration officer issued
28 that piece of paper and whether the Petitioner is the same person referred to in that order.’”
1 || Mendoza-Linares, 51 F.4th at 1159 (quoting Castro v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 835
2 || F.3d 422, 431 (3rd Cir. 2016)). Here, there is no question that an immigration officer found
3 || that Petitioner lacked a credible fear of persecution, [Doc. No. 1-2 at 1], an Immigration
4 Judge reviewed and affirmed that determination, [id. at 1-2], and Petitioner was ordered
5 ||removed, [id. at 2]. Petitioner “disagree[s] with the immigration court’s decision[,].. .
6 || ask[s] that . . . a retrial be conducted, [and] that all facts of [his] persecution in Russia be
7 taken into account.” [Petition at 10.] All of these requests go to the merits of Petitioner’s
8 ||credible fear determination rather than “whether [Petitioner] has been ordered removed
9 ||under section 1225(b)(1).”. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(5). As the Supreme Court explained in
10 || Thuraissigiam, Petitioner “can appeal the removal order to the Board of Immigration
11 Appeals and, if that appeal is unsuccessful, the alien is generally entitled to review in a
12 || federal court of appeals[,|’ here the Ninth Circuit. 591 U.S. at 108.
13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that we lack jurisdiction to review
14 || Petitioner’s claims and so DISMISS the Petition. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.
15 It is SO ORDERED.
16 || Dated: January 8, 2026
18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28