The Court of Appeals refused to rehear en banc the panel decision of 27 August 2025, which held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) did not bar Jorge Felix Ibarra-Perez’s suit for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act over his removal to Mexico, a country his removal order did not name. The order records: “The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.” Judges Hawkins and W. Fletcher recommended denial; Judge R. Nelson voted to grant. Judges Hawkins and W. Fletcher, respecting the denial, wrote: “Ibarra-Perez’s removal order nowhere mentioned Mexico.” They recorded: “Only after proceedings before the IJ were completed did the government designate Mexico as Ibarra-Perez’s country of removal.” Of the contrary reading they wrote: “Our colleagues’ interpretation of § 1252(g) is not only wrong. It is dangerous.” If their colleagues were right, they wrote, § 1252(g) “entirely insulate[s] from judicial review any post-hearing decision by ICE to remove noncitizens to third countries where they would be in danger of persecution, torture, and even death.” Judge Bea, joined by eleven colleagues, also respecting the denial, wrote: “The panel’s divided decision nullified 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), a basic jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).” He wrote that the panel’s interpretation “has been rejected by every other circuit to consider the issue,” and that “many district courts, citing the panel’s misinterpretation of § 1252(g), have exercised jurisdiction over these petitions and enjoined the government from executing these removal orders.” He objected that the panel’s approach “requires DHS, on pain of federal district court disapproval, to obtain an IJ’s sign-off as to the country of removal before executing any removal order.” Judge Bea’s statement sets out the facts of the removal: “On January 15, 2020, ICE agents informed Ibarra-Perez that he would be sent to Mexico.” Then: “Early on the morning of January 16, 2020, about 16 hours after Ibarra-Perez was informed that he would be sent to Mexico, ICE agents executed his removal order and took him to Mexico.” He closed: “I regret that the panel’s confusing, disruptive, and far-reaching decision remains the law of the Ninth Circuit.”
Caution This order only refuses rehearing; it decides nothing new, and the panel opinion of 27 August 2025 stands unamended. Both separate writings are statements respecting the denial of rehearing en banc, not opinions of the court; neither is styled as a dissent. Judge Bea’s statement is joined by eleven judges, twelve in all. The order does not give the vote count. The facts of the removal summarized above come from Judge Bea’s statement. The underlying case is a claim for damages, returned to the district court in Arizona; it does not decide whether the removal was lawful. Footnote 1 of Judge Bea’s statement lists district court orders that relied on the panel decision, including Soliman v. Warden (E.D. Cal.), which is in the register.
Third-country removal Withholding of removal Country-specific nature of withholding Jurisdiction 1252(g) Judicial review Federal Tort Claims Act Damages
The court's own text
Public copy Copy held by the Coalition
Read in full from the court’s published order of 25 June 2026 with the two statements respecting the denial of rehearing en banc (27 pages), from the Ninth Circuit’s own website.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.