Opinion ID: 3036625
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether such section, or any regula-

Text: tion issued to implement such section, is constitutional; or 25 Whether § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i), read together with § 1252(a)(5), necessarily precludes damages claims when there is a final order of removal may be informed by another provision of § 1252, § 1252(e)(1)(A), which bars courts from “enter[ing] declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief in any action pertaining to an order to exclude an alien in accordance with section 1225(b)(1) of this title.” (emphasis added). The careful limitation of this provision to equitable relief may indicate an intention to allow some damages actions to go forward. See, e.g., Munyua v. United States, No. C-03-04538, 2005 WL 43960 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2005) (sustaining a negligence claim for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act brought by an alien alleging that she was wrongfully denied asylum and removed to Kenya). SISSOKO v. ROCHA 2719