Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-09513/USCOURTS-ca10-16-09513-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta Lynch
Respondent
Hermelina Pita-Valle
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

HERMELINA PITA-VALLE, 

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, United States 

Attorney General, 

 Respondent.

No. 16-9513

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Petitioner Hermelinda Pita-Valle was subject to expedited removal proceedings, 

during which she asserted a fear of persecution. On February 10, 2016, an immigration 

judge affirmed the asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination. Because the 

“Order of Removal” portion of the relevant form was blank, the immigration judge 

included the following annotation on her order: “Please note removal order not executed. 

Court reviewed Credible Fear determination only.”

Petitioner filed this petition for review “of a decision dated February 10, 2016, that 

found ‘. . . removal order not executed.’” According to the petition, Petitioner has been 

removed from the United States. Respondent has moved to dismiss this petition for lack 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 2, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-9513 Document: 01019631281 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 1 
2

of jurisdiction. Among the documents Respondent offers in support of its motion is an 

Order of Removal, dated February 12, 2016.

Respondent argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to review an immigration 

judge’s decision affirming an asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination in the 

context of expedited removal proceedings. In response, Petitioner argues that there is no 

order of removal because the order of removal before the immigration judge was blank 

and the order of removal attached to Respondent’s motion to dismiss post-dates the 

immigration judge’s decision.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 strictly 

limits judicial review of expedited removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A). 

This court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision made in the course of expedited removal 

proceedings, including an immigration judge’s decision affirming a negative credible fear 

determination. Id. Judicial review of expedited removal proceedings is available in a 

habeas corpus proceeding, but such review is limited to determining whether: (1) the 

petitioner is an alien; (2) the petitioner was ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 

1225(b)(1); and (3) the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she 

is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, has been admitted as a refugee, or 

has been granted asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2).

Petitioner’s arguments regarding the existence of an order of removal may only be 

raised in a habeas action. Though Petitioner asks, in the alternative, that the case be 

transferred to district court for consideration of habeas relief, she has not cited any legal 

authority for such a transfer and has not explained how any court could grant habeas 

Appellate Case: 16-9513 Document: 01019631281 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 2 
3

relief in light of her removal from the United States. Accordingly, we decline to transfer 

this matter. 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted and this petition for review is dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-9513 Document: 01019631281 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 3