MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir, a non-citizen who is a permanent resident of the United States, is subject to a final order of removal. (Verified Complaint (“VC”)42). Ragbir was convicted in federal court of six counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. United States v. Ragbir, 00 Cr. 121 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 38 F. App’x 788, 789-90 (3d Cir. 2002). He served his prison term, and proceedings to remove him from the country ensued. (VC
41-42). Before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and the Second Circuit, he unsuccessfully challenged the grounds for removal, the finding that he had been convicted of an “aggravated felony.”1 Ragbir is also a “nationally-recognized immigration rights activist…who has freely exercised his right to speak out against the injustices and inhumanity of our current immigration system.” (VC4). In the present action, Ragbir and his co-plaintiffs ask this Court, among other things, to grant an Order “restraining [d]efendants from taking any action to effectuate Mr. Ragbir’s removal from the United States unless [d]efendants demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that such action is untainted by unlawful retaliation or discrimination against protected speech.” (VC at 41, Prayer for Relief at c).Ragbir is joined in this action by New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, CASA de Maryland, Inc., Detention Watch Network, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and New York Immigration Coalition (the “Organizational Plaintiffs”). Named as defendants are the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), as well as Thomas D. Homan, Thomas R. Decker, Scott Mechkowski, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, and Jefferson B. Sessions III in their official capacities.2Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 11). While that motion was pending, plaintiffs requested leave to file a motion for expedited discovery to support their preliminary injunction motion. (Doc. 40). Following the lead of the Supreme Court in a recent immigration case, the Court advised the parties that it would first address defendants’ challenge to subject matter jurisdiction before considering whether leave is warranted. See In re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443, 444 (2017); (Order of Mar. 26, 2018, Doc. 70). The parties have briefed the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the context of the preliminary injunction motion. For reasons that will be explained, all claims by plaintiffs to declare unlawful and to enjoin the execution of Ragbir’s final order of removal are dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.BACKGROUNDRagbir became a lawful permanent resident in 1994. (VC14). On September 12, 2001, following a 13-day jury trial, which resulted in a guilty verdict on seven counts, and the denial of post-verdict motions, Judge Bassler of the District of New Jersey sentenced Ragbir to 30 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, waiver of the fine, and imposition of restitution of $350,001. United States v. Ragbir, 00 Cr. 121 (WGB). The conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Ragbir, 38 F. App’x 788, 789-90 (3d Cir. 2002). He was allowed to remain free on bail pending appeal and did not begin to serve his 30-month sentence until sometime after January 26, 2004. United States v. Ragbir, 00 Cr. 121 (WGB) (Doc. 80; Doc. 111).Following completion of his term of imprisonment, ICE detained him and initiated removal proceedings. (VC41-42). An immigration judge concluded that Ragbir had committed an “aggravated felony,” warranting removal under 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and entered an order of removal on August 4, 2006. In re Ragbir, No. A 44-248-862.3 The order of removal became final upon the BIA dismissing the appeal in 2007. In re Ragbir, No. A 44-248-862, 2007 WL 1180505 (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2007); (VC42). Ragbir filed a petition for review of his final order of removal with the Second Circuit, which denied the petition, Ragbir v. Holder, 389 F. App’x 80, 85 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order), and, thereafter, for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which denied that petition, Ragbir v. Holder, 565 U.S. 816 (2011). He subsequently moved for the BIA to reconsider and reopen his removal proceedings, both of which were denied, and filed a petition for review of this decision with the Second Circuit, which dismissed the petition. Ragbir v. Lynch, 640 F. App’x 105, 106-08 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order). Another motion to reopen and reconsider his order of removal and a coram nobis petition challenging his original conviction are currently pending. (VC45).ICE released Ragbir from detention in 2008, and since then, Ragbir has become a vocal advocate for immigrant rights and “a central figure in the broader community of immigration advocates.” (VC
