## Facts

- Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national and ethnic Tamil, crossed the United States’ southern border without inspection.
- Border Patrol apprehended him about 25 yards inside the United States and treated him as an applicant for admission subject to expedited removal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
- To avoid removal, Thuraissigiam sought asylum and claimed he feared returning to Sri Lanka because he had been abducted and beaten there.
- The asylum officer generally credited Thuraissigiam’s account but found he had not shown a credible fear of persecution on a ground protected by asylum law; a supervising asylum officer agreed.
- An immigration judge affirmed the negative credible-fear determination in a brief decision.
- Thuraissigiam filed a federal habeas petition challenging the expedited removal order and the credible-fear process; he asserted (for the first time in court) fear of persecution based on his political views and Tamil ethnicity.
- The habeas petition did not seek release from custody; it sought a new opportunity to pursue asylum and additional administrative consideration of his claims.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e), which tightly limits judicial review (including habeas) of expedited removal determinations.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding § 1252(e)(2)’s limits unconstitutional as applied under the Suspension Clause and the Due Process Clause.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)’s limits on habeas review of expedited removal orders, as applied to Thuraissigiam, violate the Suspension Clause.
2. Whether, as applied to Thuraissigiam, § 1252(e)(2) and the expedited removal credible-fear scheme violate the Due Process Clause by preventing judicial review of alleged errors in the credible-fear process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit (7–2) and held that § 1252(e)(2), as applied to Thuraissigiam, does not violate the Suspension Clause.
- The Court reasoned that the historical core of habeas is a vehicle to seek release from unlawful detention; Thuraissigiam instead sought additional process and a new chance to obtain asylum and remain in the United States.
- Because the remedy requested went beyond the traditional function of the writ, the statutory limits on habeas review did not amount to an unconstitutional suspension as applied to him.
- The Court also held that, as applied, § 1252(e)(2) does not violate due process, relying on the principle that a recent unlawful entrant treated as an applicant for admission has only the process Congress provides for admission-related determinations.
- The Court directed that the habeas petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- The Suspension Clause protects habeas corpus as historically understood; at its center is testing the legality of detention with release as the standard remedy.
- Habeas does not constitutionally guarantee judicial review designed to obtain additional administrative procedures or a second chance at asylum when the petitioner is not seeking release from custody.
- Congress may sharply limit judicial review of expedited removal orders, including credible-fear determinations, without violating the Suspension Clause when the claim falls outside the historical scope of habeas.
- A noncitizen apprehended shortly after unlawful entry and treated as an applicant for admission has limited due process rights with respect to admission, and Congress may set the procedures for expedited removal.
- Precedents involving habeas review of military detention (including Guantánamo cases) do not control claims seeking review aimed at admission or further consideration of an asylum request in expedited removal.

## Conclusion

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam held that IIRIRA’s narrow habeas review provisions for expedited removal are constitutional as applied to a recent unlawful entrant who sought not release, but a new opportunity to pursue asylum, and that limiting judicial review in this setting does not violate the Suspension Clause or due process.


Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020)