Kaysha Dery Richardson v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, United States;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAYSHA DERY RICHARDSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL, United States; et
al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 21-15402
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Kaysha Dery Richardson appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Zavala v. Ives, 785 F.3d
367, 370 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15402
The district court did not err in dismissing without prejudice Richardson’s
habeas petition, where she failed to exhaust administrative remedies concerning
her detention, see Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011)
(dismissal without prejudice is proper where petitioner fails to exhaust
administrative remedies), and the court lacked jurisdiction to review her removal
order or claims for relief from removal, see Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d
1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (REAL ID Act “eliminated habeas jurisdiction,
including jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of deportation,
exclusion, or removal”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (notwithstanding § 2241 or
any other habeas provision, “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of
appeals … shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of
removal”).
To the extent Richardson, in her opening brief, raises a request for a bond
hearing, the request is denied. See Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160 (eligible detainees
may seek a bond hearing from an immigration judge, appeal to the Board of
Immigration Appeals, and then seek review of the determination by filing a habeas
corpus petition in district court).
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to Richardson’s removability,
including any re-entry bans, because Richardson has not petitioned for review of
any agency decision. See Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2016) (no

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15402
jurisdiction to review a deportation decision where petitioner failed to timely
petition for review of a final order of removal).
Richardson’s request for judicial notice, raised in her opening brief, is
granted. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may take
“judicial notice of the agency’s own records.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --