Rodriguez v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01954
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAURINI VIZUET RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 19cv1954 CAB (JLB)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While somewhat unclear, it appears that Petitioner is challenging 19 his removal order on the basis that his prior criminal conviction does not qualify as an 20 aggravated felony. [Doc. No. 1 at 2.]1 This Court, however, does not have subject matter 21 jurisdiction to review a final removal order. 22 Pursuant to the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109–13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005), 23 judicial review of all deportation, exclusion, or removal orders lies exclusively in the 24 appropriate court of appeals; the district courts no longer have jurisdiction to review such 25 orders. Therefore, the exclusive means of asserting a challenge to a final order of removal 26

27 1 It also appears that Petitioner is not currently in custody. See Doc. No. 1 at 40, showing Plaintiff’s 28 1 || and matters related thereto, is to file a petition for review in the appropriate court of 2 ||appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of 3 || appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial 4 ||review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this chapter’); 5 || Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir.2008) 6 (“RIDA amended § 1252(b)(9) of the INA to vest the circuit courts with exclusive habeas 7 || jurisdiction over petitions challenging final orders of removal.”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 8 || 1252(g) (“Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of 9 no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any 10 || alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence 11 || proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this 12 chapter.”); Lopez v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2010 WL 4279314, *2 (C.D.Cal.2010) 13 || (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a request to halt the execution of 14 || an order of removal). 15 Therefore, the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being refiled 16 the appropriate court of appeals. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 28, 2019 € Z 19 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28