{"id":380,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=380"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"vitalii-larose-expedited-removal-credible-fear-jurisdiction-thuraissigiam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=380","title":{"rendered":"Vitalii v. LaRose \u2014 S.D. Cal. Dismisses Habeas Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction Over Expedited-Removal Credible-Fear Determination"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Vitalii v. LaRose<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-03745<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Expedited removal, credible-fear determination, 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(e), Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, jurisdictional limits on habeas review<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Rychkov Vitalii is a Russian national who entered the United States in November 2025 and was placed in expedited-removal proceedings. Expedited removal is a streamlined process that allows immigration officers to summarily remove certain noncitizens \u2014 typically those caught at or near the border without proper documents \u2014 without a full immigration-court hearing.<\/p>\n

Noncitizens in expedited removal can avoid summary removal by claiming a credible fear of persecution, in which case an asylum officer interviews them and decides whether their fear is sufficient to warrant a full asylum hearing. If the asylum officer makes a negative credible-fear determination, the noncitizen can request review by an immigration judge. If the immigration judge affirms the negative determination, the original expedited-removal order stands.<\/p>\n

That is what happened here. An asylum officer found Vitalii lacked credible fear; an immigration judge reviewed and affirmed; an expedited-removal order was issued. Vitalii then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241, asking the federal court to review the credible-fear determination, conduct what he called a “retrial,” and consider all of the facts of his persecution in Russia.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court dismissed the petition on its own motion (“sua sponte”) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Even though the government had not moved to dismiss, the court has an independent obligation under Federal Rule 12(h)(3) to confirm jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Federal jurisdiction over expedited-removal proceedings is sharply limited by 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(e). District courts may review a habeas petition relating to an expedited-removal order only to determine: (1) whether the order in fact was issued; (2) whether it relates to the petitioner; and (3) certain narrow factual questions about the petitioner’s status. The statute expressly says: “There shall be no review of whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.”<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam<\/em> directly addressed strikingly similar facts and squarely held that courts “may not review ‘the determination’ that an alien lacks a credible fear of persecution.” The Ninth Circuit’s Mendoza-Linares v. Garland<\/em> decision and other circuit cases reinforce this rule, including for procedural-defect claims dressed up as challenges to the underlying determination.<\/p>\n

Here, Vitalii’s petition asked the court to disagree with the substance of the credible-fear determination \u2014 that the immigration judge wrongly described his political-involvement claim as “speculation,” and that all the facts of his Russian persecution should be weighed differently. Those are exactly the kinds of merits questions \u00a7 1252(e) and Thuraissigiam place outside district-court habeas jurisdiction. The court therefore had no power to consider the petition and dismissed.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n