Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06028/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06028-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, CSBN 44332

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Chief, Civil Division

EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150

Assistant United States Attorney

1301 Clay Street, Suite 340S

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 637-3697

FAX: (510) 637-3724

Attorneys for Respondents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

AMALIA HERNANDEZ PERALES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, )

Department of Homeland Security; )

TIMOTHY AIKEN, Field Office Director, )

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; )

and ERIC HOLDER, JR., Attorney General )

of the United States, )

)

Respondents. )

)

No. C 09-6028 SI

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Petitioner, by and through her attorney of record, and Respondents, by and through their

attorneys of record, hereby submit this joint status report.

(1) The petitioner filed a immigration habeas petition on December 24, 2009, alleging that she

received ineffective assistance of counsel from two of her former attorneys following the issuance

of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

(2) An issue in this case is whether or not this Court can and should require the petitioner to

exhaust her administrative remedies, if any, by presenting her ineffective assistance of counsel

claims to the BIA via the filing an administrative motion to reopen.

(3) In Rajinder Singh v. Napolitano, Appeal No. 07-16988, the parties expect the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to resolve the issue of whether a district court may

JOINT STATUS REPORT

C09-6028 SI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

The parties must file a joint status report by December

17, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-06028-SI Document 20 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 3
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

properly require exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any, in cases where, as here, the alleged

ineffective assistance of counsel occurred after the entry of the alien’s final removal order and

where, as here, the petitioner seeks only re-issuance of the BIA’s order or orders under Amarjeet

Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969 (9 Cir. 2007). th

(4) The Ninth Circuit held oral argument in Rajinder Singh on January 13, 2009, but has not

yet issued an opinion.

(5) On August 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued the following order:

The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for the limited purpose

of ruling upon whether the Board had jurisdiction to hear Singh’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claims and what effect, if any, the Attorney General’s recent

opinion in In re Compean, 25 I & N Dec. 1, 3 (A.G. 2009), has on this case. The

Board shall advise the court of any action or decision.

Rajinder Singh v. Napolitano, 577 F.3d 988 (9 Cir. 2009) (Order). th

(6) When the case was remanded to the BIA, the BIA asked the parties to file briefs on the

issues that had been remanded to it by the Ninth Circuit and the parties submitted briefs as

directed by the BIA.

(7) On April 30, 2010, the BIA issued a decision in Matter of Rajinder Singh, Case No.

A071789054, which responded to the questions that were posed to it by the Ninth Circuit. A copy

of the BIA’s decision is attached to this joint status report.

(8) The BIA and the parties have provided the Ninth Circuit with a copy of the BIA’s decision

for its consideration.

(9) Rajinder Singh filed a motion with the BIA on June 1, 2010, asking for reconsideration of

its April 30, 2010 decision. The petitioner has provided a copy of her motion for reconsideration

to the Ninth Circuit.

(10) The parties continue to believe it would be prudent to await the Ninth Circuit’s decision

in Rajinder Singh before filing any further briefing in the above-entitled matter and, accordingly,

ask this Court to hold this case in abeyance for an additional six months. In the event the Ninth

Circuit issues a decision in the interim, the parties will promptly notify the Court.

//

//

JOINT STATUS REPORT

C09-6028 SI 2

Case 3:09-cv-06028-SI Document 20 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Date: June 17, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

/s/

EDWARD A. OLSEN

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Respondents

Date: June 17, 2010 /s/

JAMES TODD BENNETT

Attorney for Petitioner

JOINT STATUS REPORT

C09-6028 SI 3

Case 3:09-cv-06028-SI Document 20 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 3