Thuraissigiam v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec. - 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2018)

Rule:

At a minimum, the Suspension Clause entitles a petitioner to a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate he is being held to the erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law.

Facts:

Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam was a native and citizen of Sri Lanka and a Tamil, an ethnic minority group in Sri Lanka. After crossing into the United States, he was arrested 25 yards north of the Mexican border, and placed in expedited removal proceedings. He was referred for a credible fear interview after he indicated a fear of persecution in Sri Lanka, but an asylum officer determined that Thuraissigiam had not established a credible fear of persecution. A supervisor approved the decision, and an immigration judge affirmed the negative credible fear finding in a check-box decision and returned the case to the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") for Thuraissigiam's removal. Thuraissigiam filed a habeas petition in federal district court, arguing that his expedited removal order violated his statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) did not authorize jurisdiction over Thuraissigiam's claims and rejecting his Suspension Clause arguments. Thuraissigiam timely appealed the district court's dismissal and moved for a stay of removal pending appeal.

Issue:

1. Did the district court correctly dismiss Thuraissigiam’s petition? 
2. Was 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) violative of Thuraissigiam’s constitutional rights? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed the district court’s decision, holding that although 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(e)(2) did not authorize jurisdiction over the claims in Thuraissigiam’s petition, the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2, required that an alien have a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he was being held pursuant to the erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law. According to the Court, because § 1252(e)(2) did not provide that meaningful opportunity, the provision violated the Suspension Clause as applied to Thuraissigiam.