Bode v. Noem

1/5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
FAROUKOU BODE, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-069
§
KRISTI NOEM,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Faroukou Bode’s “Respondent’s Petition” (Bode’s “Petition”).
Dkt. No. 1. 	For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Court: (1)
DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Bode’s Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of
Court to CLOSE this case.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
Bode, a citizen of Togo proceeding pro se, is in immigration custody at the Port
Isabel Detention Center (“PIDC”) located in Los Fresnos, Texas. 	Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. 	On
June 18, 2025, an immigration judge (“IJ”) issued an order of removal for Bode, and
Bode’s appeal was dismissed on December 15, 2025.2
1 Information obtained from Bode’s Petition. See Dkt. No. 1. Bode’s A-number is A-221042301, and his
country of origin is Togo. Dkt. No. 1 at 1; Dkt. N0. 1-1 at 1.
2 In his § 2241 Petition, Faroukou does not provide any information regarding the timeline of his removal
proceedings or subsequent appeal. 	See EOIR Automated Case Information, Executive Office of
Immigration Review, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (search “A-Number” field as “221042301” and
“Nationality” field as “Togo”).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00069 Document 11 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2/5
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-00069 Document 11 Filed 04/20/26 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 the
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-00069 Document 11 Filed 04/20/26 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 Petition, Bode asks the Court to “please grant me a chance to rebuild what I
need to continue to fight my case.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Bode states various reasons why he
cannot return to Togo. 	See id.; see also Dkt. No. 1-1. 	It appears, then, that Bode is
attempting to file an appeal of the BIA’s December 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 United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that retains exclusive jurisdiction. 	For the
foregoing reasons Bode’s Petition 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 Bode’s Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to
CLOSE this case.
Case 1:26-cv-00069 Document 11 Filed 04/20/26 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 20th day of April, 2026 at Brownsville, Texas.
____________________________
Ignacio Torteya, III
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00069 Document 11 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5