Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06664/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06664-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE JESUS GUTIERREZ VASQUEZ,

Petitioner, No. C 06-6664 PJH

v. ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE 

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of

Homeland Security, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Jose Jesus Gutierrez Vasquez, (“petitioner”), presently in the custody of

the Department of Homeland Security, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, entered the United States in 1988. He is married to a

U.S. citizen and has four U.S. citizen children. On January 27, 2003, an immigration judge

(“IJ”) denied petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1229b(b) and ordered removal. Petitioner then appealed the IJ’s denial to the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and additionally filed a motion to remand his case to permit

him to adjust status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). On May 18, 2004, the BIA affirmed the

IJ’s ruling denying cancellation of removal, and denied petitioner’s subsequent motion to

remand the case. 

Petitioner next sought review of the BIA’s decision by filing a petition for review – via

his counsel – in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, petitioner’s counsel filed the

petition for review in an untimely manner, and on April 19, 2005, the Ninth Circuit dismissed

petitioner’s case for failure to file an opening brief. Notwithstanding, approximately one

month later, the Ninth Circuit granted petitioner’s motion to reinstate his petition for review,

and that petition is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. 

Case 4:06-cv-06664-PJH Document 7 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person

“challenging executive detention,” on grounds that such person is “in custody in violation of

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq.;

Dearinger v. Reno, 232 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2000). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or

person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. at § 2243.

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts: (1) that his counsel deprived

him of his Fifth Amendment due process rights guaranteeing him effective assistance of

counsel, by failing to file a timely petition for review before the Ninth Circuit; and (2) that, in

the event judicial review of petitioner’s removal order is denied, such denial violates

petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process rights, and the Suspension Clause of the federal

constitution. 

The court questions, however, whether petitioner’s claims are cognizable claims for

federal habeas relief. As petitioner tacitly acknowledges in his federal habeas petition, the

REAL ID Act, which became effective on May 11, 2005, eliminated district court habeas

corpus jurisdiction over orders of removal and vested jurisdiction to review such orders

exclusively in the courts of appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d

1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2006)(affirming district court dismissal of habeas petition seeking

review of deportation order). And to the extent that petitioner seeks to avoid the REAL ID

Act’s proscriptions by challenging the Act as violative of the federal constitution and in

particular the Suspension Clause, this issue appears to have been answered in the

negative by the Ninth Circuit. See Puri, 464 F.3d at 1041-42 (“[w]e hold that the

Suspension Clause is not violated by judicial review by [the Ninth Circuit] of petitioner’s

Case 4:06-cv-06664-PJH Document 7 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

constitutional challenges to his removal order...”). 

Accordingly, depending on whether these interpretations of the law are to be

credited in this case, and whether, if so, any exceptions apply or can be stated by

petitioner, this court may be without jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s claims, and the petition

may or may not be barred. 

Both petitioner and respondent should address these issues in their responsive

papers.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition on

respondent, the Attorney General, and on the officer or employee of the Service in charge

of the Service district in which the final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a was

entered. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner and petitioner’s

counsel. 

2. Rather than an answer going to the merits, respondent shall file with the court

and serve on petitioner a brief, or a motion to dismiss if respondent desires, addressing the

jurisdictional and cognizability issues, including but not limited to the discussion set forth

above, within thirty days of the entry of this order.

3. If the petitioner wishes to respond, he shall do so by filing a response with the

court and serving it on respondent within 14 days of his receipt of respondent’s brief or

motion.

4. Respondent’s reply, if any, is due within 7 days of his receipt of petitioner’s

response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06664-PJH Document 7 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 3