Opinion ID: 73352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: procedural update

Text: After we issued Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Richardson I”), the Supreme Court decided American-Arab. Following American-Arab, Richardson asked us to recall our mandate. On May 4, 1999, citing Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998), we noted that the Supreme Court has restricted the circumstances under which a court of appeals can recall its own mandate. However, recognizing the effect of American-Arab on our opinion in Richardson, we noted in a published order dated May 4, 1999, that “we would welcome . . . an opportunity to revisit our decision in Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1999), in light of the Supreme Court's decision in” American-Arab. Richardson v. Reno, 175 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 1999). On June 1, 1999, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Arab-American. Richardson v. Reno, 119 S. Ct. 2016 (1999). After review, we reaffirm the holding in Richardson I that IIRIRA’s amendments to the INA preclude § 2241 habeas jurisdiction 1 We commend counsel for all parties for the excellent briefs filed promptly on remand. -2- over Richardson’s petition challenging his removal proceedings, which commenced after IIRIRA’s effective date and his denial of bond and parole by the INS District Director without an individualized hearing before the immigration judge. In support of this holding, we readopt and reaffirm the reasoning in Richardson I except to the extent it relied on INA § 242(g) to support its holding. As discussed below, we find that IIRIRA’s amendments to the INA, independently of § 242(g), channel judicial review of the INS’ detention of Richardson and other issues in his removal proceedings exclusively into the judicial review provided under the INA. See Arab-American, 119 S. Ct. at 943.