Mohammed v. Noem

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 0:25-CV-61673-AUGUSTIN-BIRCH DAMION SALEEM MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Respondents. ________________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS This cause comes before the Court sua sponte on Petitioner Damion Saleem Mohammed’s Petition for Habeas Corpus.1 DE 1. Therein, Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to prevent his deportation and to have this matter remanded to immigration court. See id. Petitioner has also moved to stay his deportation while his Petition for Habeas Corpus is pending. DE 3. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s challenge to his removal proceedings, the Court RECOMMENDS DENYING the Petition for Habeas Corpus [DE 1] and DENYING AS MOOT the Motion to Stay [DE 3]. “Challenges to removal proceedings used to be cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .” Themeus v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 643 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2016). “But now, however, they are not.” Id. “Following enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005, district courts lack habeas jurisdiction to entertain challenges to final orders of removal.” Id. “Instead, a petition for review filed with the appropriate court is now an alien’s exclusive means of review of a removal order.” Id. (quotation marks omitted) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5), (b)(9)). Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to 1 “[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). consider Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus. See Gonzalez v. Morris, No. 20-20359-CV, 2020 WL 13548616 , at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2020) (“[I]t is well settled that a district court has no jurisdiction to consider the validity of [a] removal order in a habeas petition, since the proper vehicle for a challenge to a removal order is a petition for review filed directly with the appropriate court of appeals.”); Barberena v. Moore, No. 1:19-CV-21025-UU, 2019 WL 13255274 , at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2019) (“Congress has stripped district courts of all jurisdiction––including but not limited to habeas and mandamus jurisdiction––over the types of removal-related challenges lodged in the Petition.”); Roblero-Chavez v. Immigr. Custom Enf’t, No. 19-14344-CV, 2019 WL 13216154 , at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2019) (concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider challenge to removal order); Sagatelian v. Acting Dir., U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, No. 0:25-CV-61141, 2025 WL 1663015 , at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2025) (finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5) meant that “only the Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction to review the order of removal in this matter”); see also Alexandre v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 452 F.3d 1204, 1206 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Even though habeas corpus relief is precluded by the REAL ID Act, a deportable alien can still seek review of constitutional and legal claims by moving the BIA to reopen or reconsider its previous ruling, and if unsuccessful, by filing a petition for review in the court of appeals.”). Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at the address listed below. DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 4th day of September, 2025. PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies to: Damion Saleem Mohammed 8530 NW 47th Street Lauderhill, FL 33351