Ali v. Noem

1/5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
HAIDER ALI, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-113
§
KRISTI NOEM,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Haider Ali’s “Notice of Appeal and Brief for the Southern
District Court of Texas” (Ali’s “Notice of Appeal”). Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons discussed
below, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ali’s
Notice of Appeal; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
Ali, a citizen of Pakistan proceeding pro se, is in immigration custody at the Port
Isabel Detention Center (“PIDC”) located in Los Fresnos, Texas. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. According
to the Executive Office of Immigration Review, an immigration judge (“IJ”) issued an
order of removal on July 28, 2025, and Ali’s appeal was dismissed on January 15, 20262.
See EOIR Automated Case Information, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW,
1 Information obtained from Ali’s Notice of Appeal. See Dkt. No. 1. Ali’s A-number is A-221041528, and his
country of origin is Pakistan. Dkt. No. 1 at 3.
2 In his § 2241 Petition, Ali does not provide any information regarding the timeline of his removal
proceedings or his subsequent appeal. See id.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00113 Document 17 Filed 04/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2/5
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ 	(search 	“A-Number” 	field 	as 	“221041528” 	and
“Nationality” field as “Pakistan”).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Standing and Ripeness
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 	They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts presume that any given case lies outside this limited
jurisdiction, and the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of showing
otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman, 796 F.2d 770,
775 (5th Cir. 1986). 	Accordingly, federal courts have an independent obligation to
examine their own subject matter jurisdiction, even sua sponte. Rivero v. Fid. Invs., Inc.,
1 F.4th 340, 344 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1670 (2022) (quoting Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)).
The United States Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to the resolution of
“cases” and “controversies.” 	Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992); U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. 	Standing is an “essential and unchanging part” of the
Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement. 	Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559. 	Standing
requires, in part, an “actual or imminent” injury, i.e., one that is “ripe for decision.” Id. at
560; Shields v. Norton, 289 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied sub nom. Schuehle
v. Norton, 537 U.S. 1071 (2002). For a claim to be ripe, it must have “matured sufficiently
to warrant judicial intervention.” 	Contender Farms, L.L.P. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 779
F.3d 258, 267 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). A premature claim for relief
is not judicially ripe and falls outside the federal courts’ limited jurisdiction. Shields, 289
F.3d at 835; see also Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)
Case 1:26-cv-00113 Document 17 Filed 04/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3/5
(noting that standing and ripeness are “essential components of federal subject-matter
jurisdiction.”).
Without subject matter jurisdiction, federal courts have no authority to adjudicate
a case and must dismiss it. Goodrich v. United States, 3 F.4th 776, 779 (5th Cir. 2021);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 	Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without
prejudice. Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021).
B. 	28 U.S.C. § 2241: Habeas Review of Final Orders of Removal
The district courts may grant writs of habeas corpus to persons in federal custody
in violation of federal law. 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(1), (c)(3). 	This power extends to
immigrant detainees in custody beyond the statutorily mandated removal period. 	8
U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001). Habeas review of
removal orders, however, is conditioned on the detainee first exhausting all available
administrative remedies. 	8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 	Failure to exhaust administrative
remedies should result in dismissal without prejudice. 	Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm
Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592, 607 (5th Cir. 2007).
C. 	Immigration and Naturalization Act: Review of Proceedings under
INA.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) provides that any alien physically
present in the United States may apply for asylum. 	8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). 	The U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), an agency of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”), has jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by aliens not
in removal proceedings and conducts the initial interview of the applicant. 	8 C.F.R. §
208.2(a)(ii). If the asylum officer denies the application, the asylum officer shall refer the
application to an immigration judge (“IJ”) for removal proceedings. 	8 C.F.R. §
Case 1:26-cv-00113 Document 17 Filed 04/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4/5
208.14(c)(1). The alien may appeal the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3).
An order of removal is final when the BIA affirms an IJ’s finding of removability or
when the time for appealing an IJ’s decision has expired. 	Lopez Acosta v. Rosen, 832
Fed.Appx. 891, 891 (5th Cir. 2021). The INA vests exclusive jurisdiction to review final
orders of removal in the United States Courts of Appeals. Pena Oseguera v. Barr, 936
F.3d 249, 250 (5th Cir. 2019); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).
III. 	DISCUSSION
In his Notice of Appeal, Ali “respectfully request[s] that the [B]oard of Immigration
Appeals grant [his] appeal.” 	Dkt. No. 1 at 7. 	Ali, throughout his Notice of Appeal,
specifically outlines various reasons why he disagrees with the asylum officer’s denial of
his asylum application. See id. at 5–6. It appears, then, that Ali is attempting to file an
appeal of the BIA’s January 15 dismissal of his BIA appeal. However, as discussed above,
the INA vests exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders of removal in the United States
Courts of Appeals. Pena Oseguera, 936 F.3d at 250. Therefore, the Court does not have
jurisdiction over this matter; instead, it is the Fifth Circuit that retains exclusive
jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons Ali’s Notice of Appeal should be denied without
prejudice to refiling in the proper court having exclusive jurisdiction.
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ali’s Notice of Appeal; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to
CLOSE this case.
Case 1:26-cv-00113 Document 17 Filed 04/01/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5/5
V. 	NOTICE TO PARTIES
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with
notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 	Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
F ED. R. CIV . P. 72(b).
SIGNED on this 1st day of April, 2026 at Brownsville, Texas.
____________________________
Ignacio Torteya, III
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00113 Document 17 Filed 04/01/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5