Filed: Nov. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-10172 Date Filed: 11/22/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10172 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-60832-JIC SANDRA ASTRID PINEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Jorge Roig, Director, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER, Molina Maritrini, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees, U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Respondent-Appellee. _
Summary: Case: 13-10172 Date Filed: 11/22/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10172 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-60832-JIC SANDRA ASTRID PINEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Jorge Roig, Director, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER, Molina Maritrini, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees, U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Respondent-Appellee. _ ..
More
Case: 13-10172 Date Filed: 11/22/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10172
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-60832-JIC
SANDRA ASTRID PINEDA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Jorge Roig, Director,
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER,
Molina Maritrini,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS),
Janet Napolitano, Secretary,
Defendants-Appellees,
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_______________________
(November 22, 2013)
Case: 13-10172 Date Filed: 11/22/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILSON, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Pineda appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pineda’s complaint sought mandamus relief
and review of her expedited removal order. Officials removed Pineda on an
expedited basis after a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer determined
she was an intending immigrant without an immigrant visa. On appeal, she argues
she was unlawfully placed in expedited removal proceedings and denied the right
of a fair removal hearing. After review, we affirm the district court’s order
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. 1
Congress has limited the scope of review for orders of expedited removal
issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or
nonstatutory), including . . . sections 1361 and 1651 of
such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review—
(i) except as provided in subsection (e) of this section,
any individual determination or to entertain any other
cause or claim arising from or relating to the
implementation or operation of an order of removal
pursuant to section 1225(b)(1) of this title[.]
1
We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) de novo. Christian Coalition of Fla., Inc. v.
United States,
662 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011).
2
Case: 13-10172 Date Filed: 11/22/2013 Page: 3 of 3
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Moreover, while a court may
determine whether an alien has been ordered removed under § 1225(b)(1), “[t]here
shall be no review of whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any
relief from removal.” 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(5).
As noted by the district court, it was undisputed that officials removed
Pineda on an expedited basis after a CBP officer determined she was an intending
immigrant without an immigrant visa, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).
The INA bars judicial review of any claim arising from or relating to the
implementation or operation of an expedited removal order, notwithstanding any
other provision of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i). It specifically precludes
review of whether an alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from
removal. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(5). Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing
Pineda’s complaint for a lack of jurisdiction because, without any applicable
exception, her claims were judicially barred from review, as they related to the
merits of her removal order. 2
AFFIRMED.
2
Although Pineda asserted federal question jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Mandamus
Act and the APA before the district court, she has waived any challenge to the district court’s
finding that none of these statutes independently established jurisdiction due to her failure to
raise them on appeal. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
Additionally, Pineda’s claim that she was denied a fair removal hearing does not constitute a
constitutional or legal question properly before this court under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D).
3