The IllegalImmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 included restrictions on federal judicial review of deportation, exclusion and removal cases.
However, this basis continued until its elimination by IIRIRA. IIRIRA replaced it with INA § 242, [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252].
Decisions regarding judicial review of removal orders are now subject to INA § 242 [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252].
However, there are matters not subject to judicial review as outlined in INA § 242(a)(2) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)].
Generally, judicial review of an order of removal lies with the circuit courts of appeals.
Under several provisions contained in IIRIRA, the United States Congress sought to simplify and expedite the removal of aliens. Moreover, this included either eliminating or severely limiting judicial review of immigration decisions.
These limits were as follows:
(1) Elimination or limitation of judicial review under INA § 242 [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252]: This provision contains a variety of court stripping or limiting provisions.
(2) Elimination of review regarding discretionary decisions relating to detention or release. This includes the grant, revocation or denial of bond or parole.
(3) Elimination of review of decisions of the Attorney General federal courts still retain jurisdiction to review jurisdictional facts. In addition, courts determine the proper scope, if any, of their own jurisdiction.
Generally, petitioners must exhaust all administrative remedies prior to requesting review of a final order.
Additionally, petitioners must comply with general Article III requirements. These include subject matter jurisdiction, standing, ripeness, mootness and the political question doctrine.