Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code [28 USCS § 2241], or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title [28 USCS §§ 1361 and 1651], and except as provided in subparagraph (D), no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 212(a)(2) or 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) [8 USCS § 1182(a)(2) or 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D)], or any offense covered by section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) [8 USCS § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)] for which both predicate offenses are, without regard to their date of commission, otherwise covered by section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) [8 USCS § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)]. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(g).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) sought to deport eight resident aliens who belonged to a group that the Federal Government characterized as an international terrorist and communist organization. In 1987, the aliens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the United States Attorney General, the INS, and various immigration officials, in which suit it was alleged, among other matters, that the INS was selectively enforcing immigration laws against the aliens in violation of the Federal Constitution's First and Fifth Amendments. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the suit, contending the court did not have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(g). The order denying petitioners' motion was affirmed, and they sought review.
Did the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 USCS 1252(g)) deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over aliens' selective-enforcement claim as deportation defense?
The Court held that 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(g) restricted judicial review of the Attorney General's decisions or actions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against aliens under the INA. Since respondents' suit challenged petitioners' decision to commence proceedings against them, there was no jurisdiction over respondents' selective enforcement suit and § 1252 did not otherwise provide jurisdiction. The Court vacated and remanded the appellate court's decision.