Case Explained: IBARRA-PEREZ V. USA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 Docket: 2:22-cv-01100- The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc regarding a Federal Tort Claims Act suit filed by Jorge Felix Ibarra-Perez against the United States following his removal to Mexico. The panel previously held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which generally bars jurisdiction over claims arising from the decision or action to execute removal orders, did not preclude Ibarra-Perez’s suit because his removal order did not designate Mexico as a country of removal. The panel reasoned that the government’s post-hearing decision to remove him to Mexico constituted a “separate and post-hearing decision” rather than an execution of the existing removal order, and thus fell outside the jurisdictional bar under Supreme Court precedent requiring a narrow reading of § 1252(g). The court affirmed this denial based on the majority view that the panel correctly applied the statutory text to distinguish between the “discretionary authority” to execute an order and the “legal authority” to remove an alien to a specific country not listed in the order. Judges Hawkins and W. Fletcher, writing for the majority, emphasized that interpreting § 1252(g) to cover post-hearing designations of third countries would dangerously insulate executive decisions to deport noncitizens to nations where they face persecution or death from judicial review. Conversely, Judge Bea, joined by eleven other judges, dissented from the denial of en banc rehearing, arguing that the panel’s decision nullified § 1252(g) by creating an impermissible “legal authority” exception that allows aliens to bypass the exclusive petition-for-review process in courts of appeals. The dissent warned that the panel’s interpretation has already led district courts to exercise jurisdiction over last-second injunctions blocking removal orders, causing inter-branch conflict and disrupting the statutory scheme intended to prevent the fragmentation of immigration proceedings. The practical consequence is that Ibarra-Perez’s case remains remanded to the district court for further proceedings on his FTCA claims, allowing him to pursue damages for alleged negligence and false imprisonment related to his removal to Mexico. The denial of en banc rehearing leaves the panel’s interpretation as the controlling law within the Ninth Circuit, permitting federal district courts to exercise jurisdiction over similar FTCA or Bivens claims where aliens allege a lack of legal authority to remove them to countries not specified in their final removal orders, despite the statutory bar on reviewing claims arising from the execution of removal orders. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.