Judge Jesse Furman
Singh was ordered removed in 2002. Although his June 2012 petition for 28 USC §2241 habeas relief did not challenge the removal order, Singh challenged his detention while awaiting Second Circuit’s decision on his application to review the removal order. The circuit dismissed appeal on July 23, and denied Singh reconsideration on Sept. 17. After Singh showed cause as to why his habeas application should not be transferred, district court granted the government’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Alabama. Distinguishing Farez-Espinoza v. Chertoff, on which Singh relied, district court—citing Hoyte v. Holder and Zhen Yi Guo v. Napolitano—found that Singh’s case fell within the “core” habeas proceeding category because he challenged only his continued detention rather than the merits of the removal order. Applying the “immediate custodian” rule articulated by Rumsfeld v. Padilla and Zhen Yi Guo, the court concluded that jurisdiction over Singh’s case lies only in the Northern District of Alabama, where Singh is detained.