Where a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident brought an action against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking compensation for the harm of an alleged wrongful removal, the claims arose from a decision or action to execute a removal order, and the district court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Dissenting opinion by Kelly, J.: “Because I conclude that Silva’s claims do not arise out of the government’s execution of a removal order, I would find that § 1252(g) does not strip the district court of jurisdiction to hear Silva’s claims. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Silva v. U.S. (MLW No. 70861/Case No. 16-1870 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Montgomery, J. (Nancy Alaine Peterson, St Paul, Minnesota, argued for appellant) (Chad A Blumenfield, Minneapolis, argued for appellee).