Background
Ernest Owusu filed a complaint seeking a declaration that his removal proceedings were unlawful, an injunction barring those proceedings, and a stay of his removal. He also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the emergency motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Owusu appealed pro se and separately requested injunctive relief pending appeal and expedited briefing.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that § 1252(g) deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over Owusu’s requests to declare his removal proceedings unlawful, enjoin those proceedings, and stay his removal.
After reviewing the record, the panel found no reversible error and relied on Mapoy v. Carroll, 185 F.3d 224, 227-31 (4th Cir. 1999). It also denied Owusu’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal and expedited briefing and decided the appeal without oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1252(g) barred the district court from adjudicating Owusu’s requests to invalidate or halt his removal proceedings and stay his removal.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed both the jurisdictional dismissal and the denial of emergency injunctive relief.
- The unpublished per curiam opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that federal district courts lack jurisdiction under § 1252(g) over certain requests aimed directly at stopping removal proceedings or removal. Litigants challenging immigration-enforcement action must account for the jurisdictional limits and review procedures established by federal immigration law.