Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
AI MING HUANG,
Petitioner,
-against-
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL;
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. SECRETARY OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-CV-406 (EK)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Ai Ming Huang petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that (1) U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement detained her pursuant to a nonexistent
removal order and (2) even if the removal order exists, it
should be vacated for violating due process. 	See Pet., ECF No.
1. 	Petitioner’s representation that there was “no direct
evidence” of the 1992 Exclusion Order’s existence has turned out
to be factually incorrect, and for the reasons that follow, her
petition is dismissed without prejudice and the order staying
her removal is now vacated.
On January 29, the Court ordered the government to
produce the removal order. 	ECF No. 10. 	On February 5, the
Case 1:26-cv-00406-EK Document 13 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
government produced that order. 	ECF No. 12-2, at 16.1
This Court cannot review the removal order or the due-
process challenge to its validity. 	“Judicial review of all
questions of law and fact,” including constitutional questions,
“arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove
an alien from the United States . . . shall be available only in
judicial review of a final order under this section.” 	8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(9). 	Here, there is a final order, ECF No. 12-2, at
16, and Huang’s petition arises from actions taken pursuant to
that order.
However, “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.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). 	Sections 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9),
taken together, “channel all challenges to removal orders and
removal proceedings to the courts of appeals.” 	Asylum Seeker
Advoc. Project v. Barr, 409 F. Supp. 3d 221, 224 (S.D.N.Y.
2019). 	The Second Circuit has stated that “section 1252(a)(5)
would clearly preclude the district court’s entertaining of a
direct challenge to a removal order.” 	Delgado v. Quarantillo,
643 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2011). 	In such cases, district courts
“lack[] subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s attempt to
1 Pagination in documents other than briefs or letters refers to ECF
pagination.
Case 1:26-cv-00406-EK Document 13 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
vacate [her] order of removal.” 	Leybinsky v. USCIS, No. 19-CV-
6154, 2021 WL 4407829, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2021).
Therefore, this Court is precluded from granting the relief
Huang seeks — vacatur of the 1992 Exclusion Order.
For the foregoing reasons, Huang’s petition is
dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. 	Rizvi v. Urstadt Biddle Props. Inc., 791 F. App’x
282, 283 n.1 (2d Cir. 2020). 	This Court’s prior order staying
her removal is hereby vacated. 	Zheng v. Gonzales, 165 F. App’x
65, 66 (2d Cir. 2006). 	The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to enter judgment and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 5, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00406-EK Document 13 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>