Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05194/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05194-1/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

Marc Van Der Hout (California Bar # 80778) 

Stacy Tolchin (California Bar #217431) 

Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP 

180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 981-3000 

Facsimile: (415) 981-3003 

Email: ndca@vblaw.com

Attorneys for Petitioner

Papu Sandhu 

Office of Immigration Litigation 

Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, DC 20044 

Telephone: (202) 616-9357 

Facsimile: (202) 307-0592 

Email: Papu.Sandhu@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Respondents 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Sergio Alfonso ARREOLA ARREOLA

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the Department o

Homeland Security, et. al. 

Respondents.

Case No. C 04-5194 VRW 

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS TO NINTH 

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS;

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TRANSFERRING CASE 

STIP AND [PROP] ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE No: C 04-5194 VRW

Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 3 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 4
STIP AND [PROP] ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE No: C 04-5194 VRW

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

On September 29, 2000, Petitioner was issued an order of reinstatement of removal pursuant 

to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). This order asserted that Petitioner was previously removed in 1998 and 

unlawfully reentered the United States thereafter. Petitioner filed a petition for review of the order 

of reinstatement of removal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) 

on October 4, 2001, asserting that he was not subject to reinstatement of removal under § 1231(a)(5) 

because his 1998 removal order, which formed the basis for reinstatement of removal, was unlawful.

The Ninth Circuit issued a stay of removal on December 20, 2001. On September 8, 2004, the 

Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Arreola-Arreola v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2004), 

transferring Petitioner’s petition for review to the District Court as a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus and concluding that this Court was the proper forum to challenge Petitioner’s 1998 removal

order.

On May 11, 2005, Congress enacted the “REAL ID Act of 2005,” Pub. L. No.109-13, 119 

Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). This Court subsequently issued an order that the parties, on or before 

June 27, 2005, submit a status report addressing the current status of the case and whether the REAL 

ID Act of 2005 requires transfer of this case to the Court of Appeals. The parties file this stipulation 

in lieu of that status report.

The parties believe that transfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is 

appropriate in this matter. Pursuant to Real ID Act of 2005 section 106(c), petitions for writ of 

habeas corpus challenging decisions of removal that are pending at the time of the enactment of the 

REAL ID Act shall be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the circuit in which a petition for 

review could have been properly filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), as amended by the REAL ID Act.

See REAL ID § 106(c). The Court of Appeals shall treat the transferred case as a petition for 

review, except that the time requirements for filing a petition for review shall not apply. Id. Thus, 

the parties agree that transfer to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is appropriate.1

The parties stipulate that, subject to Court approval, the stay of removal ordered by the 

1 In this case, the parties believe that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Morales-Izquierdo v. 

Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 2004) may impact the disposition of Petitioner’s challenge to his 

reinstatement of removal order, and are prepared to address that issue before the Ninth Circuit.

Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 3 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 4
STIP AND [PROP] ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE No: C 04-5194 VRW

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

Court of Appeals on December 20, 2001 before the Ninth Circuit shall remain in effect upon 

transfer and during the pendency of Petitioner’s petition for review in the Ninth Circuit.

Dated: June 22, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

 ________/s/__________________ 

 Papu Sandhu

 Office of Immigration Litigation

 Attorney for Respondents

Date: June 22, 2005 __________/s/_______________ 

 Marc Van Der Hout

 Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP

 Attorney for Petitioner

I certify under penalty of perjury that Papu Sandhu’s consent in the filing of this document was 

obtained.

Date: June 22, 2005 __________/s/_______________ 

 Marc Van Der Hout

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: _________________

 Hon. Vaughn R. Walker

 United States District Judge

2

Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 3 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 3 of 4

June 24, 2005

Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 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

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I, , the undersigned, say: 

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action or proceedings; my

business address is Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, 180 Sutter Street, Fifth 

Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104. 

On June 22, 2005, I caused to be served the within: 

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO 

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TRANSFERRING CASE 

on the opposing counsel by depositing one copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with 

postage fully pre-paid, in a mailbox regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service at 

San Francisco, California, addressed as follows: 

Papu Sandhu

Office of Immigration Litigation 

Department of Justice/Civil Division 

Post Office Box 878, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044 

Executed on June 22, 2005, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of 

perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 

/s/

Stacy Tolchin

Declarant

STIP AND [PROP] ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE No: C 04-5194 VRW

Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 3 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 4 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-05194-VRW Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 Page 4 of 4