Perez v. Harrington

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 1, 2000
• Docket: 99-10176
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________

No. 99-10176 Summary Calendar __________________

MARGARITA PEREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM HARRINGTON, acting district director of the Dallas Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:98-CV-2309-D) _________________________________________________________________

February 1, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Margarita Perez appeals the district court’s dismissal of her

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Legal

conclusions on jurisdiction are reviewed de novo.

Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1999).

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), “no court shall have

jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any

alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General

to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal

orders against any alien under this chapter”. Perez’s complaint

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. arises from the Attorney General’s actions to execute a deportation

order. The district court concluded properly that it did not have

subject-matter jurisdiction. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-

Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 119 S. Ct. 936, 940-41

(1999); Alvidres-Reyes v. Reno, 180 F.3d 199, 201, 205 (5th Cir.

1999).

Perez’s reliance on Hernandez v. Reno, 91 F.3d 776 (5th Cir.

1996), is misplaced. It was decided prior to the enactment of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

and, thus, does not address the scope of the district court’s

jurisdiction under § 1252(g) to consider a challenge to a

deportation order.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -