Vitalii v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center et al

1
3:25-cv-3745-CAB-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RYCHKOV VITALII,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3745-CAB-MSB
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 1]
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Rychkov Vitalii’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner, a citizen of
Russia, states that he has been held in custody since he entered the United States on
November 16, 2025. 	[Petition at 9.] 	On December 1, 2025, Petitioner alleges that he
received a negative credible fear determination from an asylum officer, which was then
reviewed and affirmed by an Immigration Judge on December 5, 2025. [Id.]
Although Respondents have not moved to dismiss this action, the Court “has an
independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] ha[s] subject matter jurisdiction.”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.”). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They
Case 3:25-cv-03745-CAB-MSB Document 2 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-3745-CAB-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Petitioner alleges that the procedure leading to his order of removal was defective in
that the Immigration Judge who affirmed the negative credible fear determination
“incorrectly stated that [Petitioner] was speculating” about his political involvement. [Id.
at 6.] 	As such, Petitioner asks that this Court review the determination reached by the
asylum officer and affirmed by the Immigration Judge.
“In 	determining 	whether 	an 	alien 	has 	been 	ordered 	removed 	under 	section
1225(b)(1) of this title, the court’s inquiry shall be limited to whether such an order in fact
was issued and whether it relates to the petitioner. There shall be no review of whether the
alien 	is 	actually 	inadmissible or 	entitled 	to 	any 	relief 	from 	removal.” 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1252(e)(5). 	Further, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) limits a district court’s review of any
determination made under section 1225(b)(1) to “determinations of . . . whether the
petitioner is an alien . . . was ordered removed under such section, and can prove by a
preponderance of the evidence” certain facts not at issue here. Accordingly, the Supreme
Court has explicitly held—on strikingly similar facts—that “courts may not review ‘the
determination’ that an alien lacks a credible fear of persecution.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec.
v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 112 (2020). 	Overwhelming Ninth Circuit precedent
likewise confirms that the limitations in § 1252(e) bar judicial review of the merits of the
determinations underlying an expedited removal order. See Mendoza-Linares v. Garland,
51 F.4th 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2022); Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 741 F.3d 1016,
1021 n.4, 1022 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077, 1082
(9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] court’s habeas jurisdiction does not extend to review of the claim that
an alien was wrongfully deprived of the administrative review permitted under the statute
and applicable regulations.”).
The extent of this Court’s habeas jurisdiction in reviewing an expedited removal
under § 1252(e)(2)(B) “is limited to determining ‘whether an immigration officer issued
that piece of paper and whether the Petitioner is the same person referred to in that order.’”
Case 3:25-cv-03745-CAB-MSB Document 2 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-3745-CAB-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mendoza-Linares, 51 F.4th at 1159 (quoting Castro v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 835
F.3d 422, 431 (3rd Cir. 2016)). Here, there is no question that an immigration officer found
that Petitioner lacked a credible fear of persecution, [Doc. No. 1-2 at 1], an Immigration
Judge reviewed and affirmed that determination, [id. at 1–2], and Petitioner was ordered
removed, [id. at 2]. 	Petitioner “disagree[s] with the immigration court’s decision[,] . . .
ask[s] that . . . a retrial be conducted, [and] that all facts of [his] persecution in Russia be
taken into account.” [Petition at 10.] All of these requests go to the merits of Petitioner’s
credible fear determination rather than “whether [Petitioner] has been ordered removed
under section 1225(b)(1).” 	8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(5). 	As the Supreme Court explained in
Thuraissigiam, Petitioner “can appeal the removal order to the Board of Immigration
Appeals and, if that appeal is unsuccessful, the alien is generally entitled to review in a
federal court of appeals[,]” here the Ninth Circuit. 591 U.S. at 108.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that we lack jurisdiction to review
Petitioner’s claims and so DISMISS the Petition. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03745-CAB-MSB Document 2 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3