Cruz-Ortiz v. Gonzales
This text of 221 F. App'x 531 (Cruz-Ortiz v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The district court properly determined that the REAL ID Act stripped it of habeas jurisdiction over appellant’s final order of removal, see Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.2006), and that appellant’s habeas petition was a disguised attempt to challenge the validity of the removal order. In any event, appellant is being voluntarily detained — upon his requested stay of removal — pending appeal of his final removal order. The Supreme Court has explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) requires such detention: “After entry of a final removal order and during the 90-day removal period ... aliens must be held in custody.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 683, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
221 F. App'x 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-ortiz-v-gonzales-ca9-2007.