1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Eleonora Abramian, et al., No. CV-25-04256-PHX-SHD (ASB)
10 Petitioners, ORDER
11 v.
12 Pam Bondi, et al.,
13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioners are natives and citizens of Georgia who filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action 16 seeking “mandamus, APA [Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)], and constitutional 17 relief to prevent the unlawful and premature removal . . . while their motion to reopen is 18 pending before the Board of Immigration appeals.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Late in the afternoon on 19 November 16, 2025, Petitioners also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 20 through the Court’s “After-Hours Emergency Injunctive Relief Procedure” alleging 21 Eleonora Abramian’s removal was scheduled to take place that day at 6:00 p.m. The Court 22 will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. 23 I. Background 24 Petitioners allege their orders of removal were issued in 1995 and, since that time, 25 they have been released on Orders of Supervision requiring them to check in twice per 26 year. (Doc. 1 at 5.) They argue that removal at this juncture would violate their 27 constitutional rights because they suffer from medical vulnerabilities and removal is 28 “medically dangerous” and will result in irreparable harm. Petitioners also argue they 1 received ineffective assistance of counsel throughout their removal proceedings and are 2 entitled to withholding of removal, CAT protection, and other relief. On November 14, 3 2025, Petitioners filed a motion to reopen their immigrations proceedings with the Board 4 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and seek a stay of removal until that motion is 5 adjudicated. Petitioners also filed with the BIA a motion to stay their removal, but that 6 motion was summarily denied. 7 Specifically, Petitioners raise eight counts for relief under the All Writs Act and 28 8 U.S.C. § 2241. They seek equitable and declaratory relief arguing the BIA’s denial of their 9 motion to stay their removal violated the APA, they seek mandamus relief to compel the 10 BIA to issue a reasoned decision, and contend their removal before adjudication of their 11 motion to reopen would violate their due process rights. 12 II. Legal Standards 13 In the Ninth Circuit, “Petitioners seeking a stay of removal must show that 14 irreparable harm is probable and either: (a) a strong likelihood of success on the merits and 15 that the public interest does not weigh heavily against a stay; or (b) a substantial case on 16 the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the Petitioners’ favor.” Leiva- 17 Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing application of Nken v. 18 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 444 (2009)); see also Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 19 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 20 Where a party “can only show that there are ‘serious questions going to the 21 merits’—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary 22 injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the [party]’ s favor,’ 23 and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 24 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 25 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this Ninth Circuit “serious questions” test, “[t]he 26 elements . . . must be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a 27 weaker showing of another.” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). 28 A federal district court is authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 1 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where a petitioner is “in custody under or by color of the authority of the 2 United States . . . in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 3 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1), (3). District courts are directed to screen habeas corpus petitions 4 before requiring the government to file a response. A district court may summarily dismiss 5 a habeas corpus petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits 6 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2254.1 See also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are 8 authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its 9 face”); Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2017) (“District courts adjudicating 10 habeas petitions . . . . are instructed to summarily dismiss claims that are clearly not 11 cognizable.”); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983) (Rule 4 “explicitly 12 allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no claim for 13 relief is stated”). 14 Habeas corpus review in federal district court is not available, however, for claims 15 “arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, 16 adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), “arising from any action 17 taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9),2 or “challeng[ing] 18 a ‘discretionary judgment’ by the Attorney General or a ‘decision’ that the Attorney 19 General has made regarding [an alien’s] detention or release,” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 20 510, 516 (2003) (discussing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) 21 (precluding review of other discretionary decisions and actions specified by statute). 22 III. Discussion 23 Here, Petitioners fail to state a claim for habeas corpus relief. While Petitioners 24 allege they “do not challenge the underlying 1995 removal orders in this action” they are 25 challenging Respondents’ discretion in executing their final orders of removal. (Doc. 1 at
26 1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts apply to habeas corpus proceedings under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 27 2 See also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (the court of appeals “shall be the sole and 28 exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Eleonora Abramian, et al., No. CV-25-04256-PHX-SHD (ASB)
10 Petitioners, ORDER
11 v.
12 Pam Bondi, et al.,
13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioners are natives and citizens of Georgia who filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action 16 seeking “mandamus, APA [Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)], and constitutional 17 relief to prevent the unlawful and premature removal . . . while their motion to reopen is 18 pending before the Board of Immigration appeals.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Late in the afternoon on 19 November 16, 2025, Petitioners also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 20 through the Court’s “After-Hours Emergency Injunctive Relief Procedure” alleging 21 Eleonora Abramian’s removal was scheduled to take place that day at 6:00 p.m. The Court 22 will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. 23 I. Background 24 Petitioners allege their orders of removal were issued in 1995 and, since that time, 25 they have been released on Orders of Supervision requiring them to check in twice per 26 year. (Doc. 1 at 5.) They argue that removal at this juncture would violate their 27 constitutional rights because they suffer from medical vulnerabilities and removal is 28 “medically dangerous” and will result in irreparable harm. Petitioners also argue they 1 received ineffective assistance of counsel throughout their removal proceedings and are 2 entitled to withholding of removal, CAT protection, and other relief. On November 14, 3 2025, Petitioners filed a motion to reopen their immigrations proceedings with the Board 4 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and seek a stay of removal until that motion is 5 adjudicated. Petitioners also filed with the BIA a motion to stay their removal, but that 6 motion was summarily denied. 7 Specifically, Petitioners raise eight counts for relief under the All Writs Act and 28 8 U.S.C. § 2241. They seek equitable and declaratory relief arguing the BIA’s denial of their 9 motion to stay their removal violated the APA, they seek mandamus relief to compel the 10 BIA to issue a reasoned decision, and contend their removal before adjudication of their 11 motion to reopen would violate their due process rights. 12 II. Legal Standards 13 In the Ninth Circuit, “Petitioners seeking a stay of removal must show that 14 irreparable harm is probable and either: (a) a strong likelihood of success on the merits and 15 that the public interest does not weigh heavily against a stay; or (b) a substantial case on 16 the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the Petitioners’ favor.” Leiva- 17 Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing application of Nken v. 18 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 444 (2009)); see also Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 19 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 20 Where a party “can only show that there are ‘serious questions going to the 21 merits’—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary 22 injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the [party]’ s favor,’ 23 and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 24 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 25 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this Ninth Circuit “serious questions” test, “[t]he 26 elements . . . must be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a 27 weaker showing of another.” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). 28 A federal district court is authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 1 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where a petitioner is “in custody under or by color of the authority of the 2 United States . . . in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 3 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1), (3). District courts are directed to screen habeas corpus petitions 4 before requiring the government to file a response. A district court may summarily dismiss 5 a habeas corpus petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits 6 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2254.1 See also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are 8 authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its 9 face”); Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2017) (“District courts adjudicating 10 habeas petitions . . . . are instructed to summarily dismiss claims that are clearly not 11 cognizable.”); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983) (Rule 4 “explicitly 12 allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no claim for 13 relief is stated”). 14 Habeas corpus review in federal district court is not available, however, for claims 15 “arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, 16 adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), “arising from any action 17 taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9),2 or “challeng[ing] 18 a ‘discretionary judgment’ by the Attorney General or a ‘decision’ that the Attorney 19 General has made regarding [an alien’s] detention or release,” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 20 510, 516 (2003) (discussing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) 21 (precluding review of other discretionary decisions and actions specified by statute). 22 III. Discussion 23 Here, Petitioners fail to state a claim for habeas corpus relief. While Petitioners 24 allege they “do not challenge the underlying 1995 removal orders in this action” they are 25 challenging Respondents’ discretion in executing their final orders of removal. (Doc. 1 at
26 1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts apply to habeas corpus proceedings under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 27 2 See also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (the court of appeals “shall be the sole and 28 exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”). 1 2.) Petitioners also argue they are challenging the “BIA’s unexplained denial of a stay and 2 ICE’s attempt to execute removal while a motion to reopen is pending.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) 3 This Court lacks jurisdiction over such a challenge because Petitioners’ request to halt the 4 execution of a final removal order “arise[s] from” an “action” or a “proceeding” brought 5 in connection with Petitioners’ removal (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)), or from “the decision or 6 action” to “execute removal orders against” Petitioners (8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)). See 7 American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 492 (1999) (interpreting 8 Section 1252(g) to foreclose judicial review over the Immigration and Naturalization 9 Service’s decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders); 10 see also Ma v. Holder, 860 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (finding that the 11 district court lacked jurisdiction under Section 1252(g) to stay a removal pending the BIA’s 12 decision on a motion to reopen); Lopez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. CV 10-7929 AG 13 (JC), 2010 WL 4279314, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010) (finding that the district court did 14 not have jurisdiction over a habeas claim challenging the IJ’s denial of a motion to stay); 15 Mejia-Espinoza v. Mukasey, No. CV 08-7884 FMC (PLA), 2009 WL 235625, at *3 (C.D. 16 Cal. Jan. 27, 2009) (finding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a request to stay 17 removal during the pendency of a motion to reopen before the BIA). 18 Petitioners also challenge the BIA’s summary denial of their motion to stay removal 19 as violating the APA for which they seek mandamus relief. The APA authorizes “[a] 20 person suffering legal wrong because of agency decision, or adversely affected or 21 aggrieved by agency action” to seek judicial review of the agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 702. 22 A court may set aside final agency action found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 23 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2), and where 24 an agency has failed to act within the meaning of the APA, a court may compel the “agency 25 action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 26 Petitioners fail to state a colorable claim for review under the APA. Petitioners do 27 not present any final determination that is subject to review, nor do they seek a 28 determination by an agency that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. 1 See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (“a claim under 2 § 706(1) can proceed only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete 3 agency action that it is required to take”); Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 941-42 (9th 4 Cir. 2013). Insofar as Petitioners seek review of the BIA’s decision to deny their motion 5 to stay, such claim is barred from review by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). See Patchak v. 6 Zinke, 138 S. Ct. 897, 905 (2018) (finding the jurisdiction-stripping provision which 7 “applie[d] ‘[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,’” included “the general grant of 8 federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331”); 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) (the APA does not 9 apply “to the extent that . . . statutes preclude judicial review.”). 10 Finally, the remaining grounds cited by Petitioners do not give rise to a cognizable 11 claim for relief. The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1651, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, are not independent sources 13 of jurisdiction, and serve only to enlarge the range of remedies available in cases where 14 jurisdiction otherwise exists. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 15 U.S. 191, 197 (2014); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th 16 Cir. 2005) (“the Declaratory Judgment Act does not by itself confer federal subject-matter 17 jurisdiction”); Lights of Am., Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 130 F.3d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 18 1997) (“the All Writs Act is not itself a source of jurisdiction”); Starbuck v. City and 19 County of San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450, 459 n.18 (9th Cir. 1977) (the Mandamus Act “does 20 not provide an independent ground for jurisdiction”). And, even if they were independent 21 sources of jurisdiction, as described above, relief would be barred by § 1252. See 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (“notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or 23 nonstatutory), including . . . sections 1361 and 1651 . . .”). 24 Petitioners have therefore failed to present cognizable grounds for relief. 25 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Petition and this action. 26 IT IS ORDERED: 27 (1) Petitioners’ Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus 28 By A Person In Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed. 1 (2) Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 2 Injunction (Doc. 2) is denied. 3 (3) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case. 4 Dated this 17th day of November, 2025. 5 6 / ,
° H le Sharad H. Desai 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-6-