NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

No. 16-1017

_____________

HARJIT SINGH,

 Appellant

v.

WARDEN PIKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; 

DIRECTOR THOMAS DECKER, Philadelphia Office, USICE; 

SARAH R. SALDANA; SECRETARY UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

_____________

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

District Court No. 1-15-cv-02494

District Judge: The Honorable John E. Jones, III

_____________

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

January 23, 2017

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: June 8, 2017) 
2

_____________________

 OPINION

_____________________ 

 

SMITH, Chief Judge.

By his own admission, Petitioner-Appellant Harjit Singh “first came to the 

United States on March 3, 2015, and entered through Texas without inspection[], 

and was almost immediately apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol, and detained.” 

10A (Pet.) ¶ 10. After Singh failed to prove to an asylum officer and an 

immigration judge that he had a credible fear of persecution or torture.

1 Singh was 

ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). 

On December 29, 2015, Singh filed an emergency petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the District Court should 

review the Immigration Judge’s finding of negative credible fear. Section 

1252(e)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code limits habeas review of 

determinations made under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) to “(A) whether the petitioner is 

an alien, (B) whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, and

 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.

1

“[I]f the interviewing asylum officer, or the [immigration judge] upon de novo

review, concludes that the alien possesses a credible fear of persecution or torture, 

the alien is referred for non-expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a, ‘during which time the alien may file an application for asylum and 

withholding of removal.’ 8 C.F.R. § 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(B).” Castro v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422, 426 n.4 (3d Cir. 2016).
3

(C) whether the petitioner can prove . . . that the petitioner is [a lawful permanent 

resident], has been admitted as a refugee . . . or has been granted asylum.” Singh’s 

attempt to have the District Court review the credible fear determination did not fit 

in any of those categories. Accordingly, on January 4, 2016, the District Court 

denied Singh’s petition for habeas corpus for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Singh appeals, arguing that, because 8 U.S.C. § 1252 prevents courts from 

reviewing the merits of his habeas petition, the statute unconstitutionally “violates 

the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, and must be stricken.” Singh Br. 15. 

In Castro v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 835 F.3d 422 

(3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 1366739 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2017), we held that

8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not violate the Suspension Clause when it deprives courts of 

jurisdiction to review the merits of habeas petitions filed by aliens who were 

“apprehended within hours of surreptitiously entering the United States” and who 

sought to prevent their removals by challenging negative credible fear 

determinations. Castro, 835 F.3d at 428, 445–49.2 Singh is in the same factual 

circumstances as were the Castro petitioners. Therefore, under Castro, § 1252 did

 

2 On October 31, 2016, the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit, at our direction, wrote to counsel directing them “to file 

supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Castro . . . on or before November 

28, 2016.” The Government filed a supplemental brief stating that this case was 

indistinguishable from Castro. Singh’s counsel did not file a supplemental brief. 
4

not violate the Suspension Clause when it deprived the District Court of subjectmatter jurisdiction over Singh’s habeas petition. Accordingly, we will affirm.