Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01715/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01715-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

07cv1715

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENE ALFARO VILLARREAL,

Petitioner,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV1715 JAH(POR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

[28 U.S.C. § 2241]

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Rene Alfaro Villareal (“petitioner”), through counsel, has filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release from detention by

the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“ICE”). Respondents have filed a return to the petition. After a careful consideration of

the pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth

below, this Court DENIES the petition in its entirety.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-01715-JAH-POR Document 8 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The original petition filed in this Court failed to include enough information for the Court to

proceed on the merits of petitioner’s claims. See Doc. # 1. Thus, this Court directed petitioner to file a brief

explaining, in detail, plaintiff’s allegations and supporting authority for the allegations. See Doc. # 3.

Accordingly, all references to the facts herein are taken from petitioner’s brief in support of the petition filed

pursuant to this Court’s direction. 

2 07cv1715

BACKGROUND

Petitioner claims he was born in Gilroy, California on August 13, 1972, of parents

who are citizens of Mexico and who returned to Mexico when petitioner was two years old.

Doc. # 41

 at 2. Thus, petitioner claims he is a United States citizen and has used his birth

certificate as means of entry into the United States from Mexico since he was twenty years

old. Id. at 2-3. In January 1999, petitioner was detained at the San Clemente border

checkpoint, at which time petitioner signed an agreement to be voluntarily returned to

Mexico, indicating that he had made a false claim to United States citizenship. Id. at 3.

On August 3, 2007, petitioner was again detained by ICE on the grounds that he was

making a false claim to citizenship and was subsequently placed in removal proceedings.

Id.

The instant petition was filed on August 30, 2007. Pursuant to this Court’s

direction, petitioner filed a clarifying brief in support of his petition on September 10,

2007. Respondents filed a return to the petition on October 26, 2007. Petitioner did not

file a traverse within the time frame permitted to do so.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks release from custody on the grounds that respondents have violated

the Immigration and Nationality Act by detaining a United States citizen under INA

§ 235(b)(1) and have violated petitioner’s right to due process of law by failing to grant

him release on bond pending the removal proceedings. See Doc. # 4 at 6. In response,

respondents contend that (1) this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Department of

Homeland Security’s determination to commence removal proceedings; (2) petitioner has

had notice and ample opportunity to be heard on his citizenship claim before the

immigration court; and (3) this Court is statutorily precluded from reviewing petitioner’s

citizenship claim because the claim has been presented as a defense in his removal

Case 3:07-cv-01715-JAH-POR Document 8 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2 Because this Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim, this Court does not reach the

issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

3 07cv1715

proceedings, Doc. # 7 at 1-2. In addition, respondents claim petitioner has failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies required to bring suit before this Court.2

 Id. at 2.

This Court finds it lacks jurisdiction to review the Department of Homeland

Security’s decision to instigate removal proceedings against petitioner and to release

petitioner on bond pending those proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); Reno v. AmericanArab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999). This Court further finds that

petitioner’s due process claim lacks merit, in that, based on a review of the record

presented, it appears petitioner has had notice and opportunity to be heard on his

citizenship claim and his request for bond during the proceedings before the immigration

court. 

In addition, this Court finds that, insofar as petitioner seeks this Court’s

intervention on his citizenship claim, such intervention is statutorily precluded. See 8

U.S.C. § 1503(a)(declaratory judgment action cannot be instituted if nationality is at issue

in removal proceedings); Chau v. I.N.S., 247 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (“once

removal proceedings have been initiated, a petition for review ... is the only avenue by

which a person may seek a judicial determination of his or her status as a national of the

United States.”). Thus, although petitioner is certainly entitled to review of his claim to

United States citizenship, this Court may not interfere with ongoing removal proceedings

and any final determination of such proceedings will be conducted by the Ninth Circuit.

See Rivera v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1129, 1136 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1)

& (a)(5). Therefore, this Court finds the instant petition must be DENIED in its entirety.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-01715-JAH-POR Document 8 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 07cv1715

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED in its entirety.

Dated: April 21, 2008

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01715-JAH-POR Document 8 Filed 04/21/08 Page 4 of 4