## Facts

- Twenty-eight families (mothers and minor children) from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala entered the United States near the southern border without valid entry documents.
- Each family was apprehended within hours of entry and within a few miles of the border; none had been formally admitted.
- DHS placed each family in expedited removal under INA § 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), after they expressed fear of persecution or torture if returned.
- Asylum officers conducted credible-fear interviews and issued negative credible-fear determinations for each family.
- Immigration judges reviewed the negative credible-fear determinations de novo and upheld them in every case.
- DHS issued final expedited removal orders and detained the families at the Berks County Residential Center in Pennsylvania pending removal.
- The families filed habeas petitions alleging statutory, regulatory, treaty-based, and constitutional defects in the expedited removal and credible-fear process (including Due Process, CAT/FARRA, APA, and INA claims).

## Issues

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) permitted federal habeas jurisdiction to review petitioners’ challenges to expedited removal orders and negative credible-fear determinations beyond the statute’s narrow review categories.
2. If § 1252(e) barred review, whether that bar violated the Suspension Clause as applied to these petitioners.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held § 1252(e) tightly limits habeas review of expedited removal orders to specified threshold questions, and petitioners’ challenges to credible-fear determinations and alleged procedural/legal errors fell outside those limits.
- The court held the jurisdictional limits, as applied, did not violate the Suspension Clause because petitioners, apprehended shortly after crossing and never admitted, could be treated as applicants for initial admission and could not invoke Suspension Clause protection to obtain broader review.

## Legal Principles

- INA § 1252(e) authorizes only limited habeas review of expedited removal orders, generally confined to identity/status and whether an expedited removal order was issued, and it forecloses review of credible-fear determinations and the merits of removal.
- Courts must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction when claims challenging expedited removal exceed § 1252(e)’s enumerated review categories.
- For constitutional purposes, noncitizens apprehended shortly after unlawful entry and not admitted may be treated as seeking initial admission, which limits constitutional protections relating to admission and removal.
- As applied to such recent entrants in expedited removal, restricting habeas review under § 1252(e) does not violate the Suspension Clause because the petitioners cannot invoke that constitutional protection to demand merits review of admission-related determinations.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Congress, through INA § 1252(e), barred federal courts from hearing habeas challenges to the legality and correctness of expedited removal and credible-fear determinations in these cases, and that applying those limits to families apprehended shortly after unlawful entry did not offend the Suspension Clause because they were constitutionally treated as applicants for initial admission.


Castro v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016)