See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (b)(9); Bonhometre, 414 F.3d at 446. Under that same regime, exclusion proceedings, which are now expedited removal proceedings, are exclusively reviewable under the limited habeas review provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) in district court. “Because the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the statute retain some avenues of judicial review, limited though they may be, [Petitioners have] not been unconstitutionally denied a judicial forum.”

. Reading § 1252(b)(9) to bar review of constitutional tort actions would be inconsistent

The Plaintiffs’ NFOP-based claims against the senior ICE officials are materially different from the claims at issue in El-Badrawi. Those claims, like the claims in this case against ICE agents who actually made the arrests, are not barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).7 II. Special Factors Counsel Against Recognizing a Bivens Remedy

Song, 2007 WL 1101283, at *3 (emphasis added). In addition, in Ma & Liu, having rejected the Case 1:07-cv-00422-RMC Document 14 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 19 of 38 20 government’s jurisdictional arguments under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the court proceeded to find that the mandamus statute provides affirmative jurisdiction in suits such as that brought by the Plaintiff. “[T]his Court finds that plaintiffs have a right to the adjudication of their adjustment applications and defendants’ actions in that respect are not wholly discretionary.”

Mar. 11, 2011), aff’d, Pedroza v. Gonzalez, 488 Fed. Appx. 270 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2012) (“The district court properly dismissed Pedroza’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)”). When Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), it intended to preclude federal courts from hearing civil suits concerning the decisions and actions of agents of the Department Case 3:16-cv-00546-AJB-BGS Document 22-1 Filed 04/24/17 PageID.120 Page 19 of 22 14 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 of Homeland Security,10 such as those alleged in Orozco’s Complaint. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed to the extent it alleges claims arising out of Orozco’s arrest, detention and deportation undertaken to execute the removal order.

(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Harris County, Tex. v. CarMax Auto Superstores, 177 F.3d 306, 312 (5th Cir.1999)). Therefore, because the Court’s conclusion is clear error the Court should reconsider its finding that a preliminary injunction is permissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1).10 C. The Government Has A Strong Security Interest in Using Family Detention As An Element of Its Efforts to Deter Illegal Mass Migration. The jurisdictional arguments above are sufficient to establish that reconsideration is warranted under Federal Rule of Procedure 59(e).

Although the Federal courts do have a 16 Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 42 Filed in TXSD on 10/03/14 Page 24 of 30 role in determining whether an alien is inadmissible or may be removed from the United States, that role is limited to the courts of appeals reviewing determinations made by the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (b)(9). There remains no place for Plaintiff to claim fraud, negligence, or defamation, or other violations of law relating to the administration of the immigration statutes.19 Further, Plaintiff is unable to show under the prevailing judicial test that Congress expressly or impliedly intended to create a private cause of action to permit her to enforce the immigration laws.

C 08-4220 PJH 4 appeals. See Humphries 164 F.3d at 945; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Because aliens like Plaintiffs had alternative remedies to challenge both the decision to detain them and to avail themselves of administrative and judicial remedies at every step of the removal process, this Court should find that it lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s Bivens claims.

Exclusive jurisdiction for review of final orders of removal now lies in the Courts of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Thus, to the extent Mr. Henry is challenging the lawfulness or any factual findings related to his removal order through the above- referenced motions, those motions should be denied and claims therein dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.4 CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, this petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s attempt to seek review of the release of aliens must fail. Further, Congress has specifically limited immigration-related injunctive relief, stating: Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.4 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). Thus, this Court may not review Defendants’ exercises of discretion, impose a quarantine, enjoin decisions related to transportation of aliens, or otherwise enjoin the myriad processes of inspection, detention, release and removal implicated in this case.5 The INA lays out a comprehensive scheme for the inspection, detention, processing, and removal of aliens.