Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00090/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00090-0/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 (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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ECHEVERRIA LOPEZ LUCIANO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 15cv0090-GPC(WVG)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241

vs.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General

of the United States; LEON

RODRIGUEZ, Director of the USCIS

Respondents.

On January 15, 2015, Petitioner Echeverria Lopez Luciano (“Petitioner”), a

detainee and in custody with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a stay of his removal

proceedings and a ruling on his application for “deferred action.” Respondent filed a

response on February 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 3.) Petitioner did not file a reply. After a

thorough review of the brief, supporting documents and applicable law, the Court

DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico and DHS first encountered him on

August 18, 2010, when he attempted to gain entry to the United States at the Otay Mesa

port of entry by presenting a false document. (Dkt. No. 4-1, Resp’t Exs. at 2-4.) At

- 1 - [15cv0090-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00090-GPC-WVG Document 7 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 5
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

that time, he stated under oath that he was separated from his wife, and that he had no

fear of returning to his home in Mexico. (Id. at 6-8.) He was ordered removed in

expedited removal proceedings, and he acknowledged that he could not return to the

United States for five years without obtaining permission from DHS or the Attorney

General. (Id. at 9-11.)

About one year later, on September 17, 2011, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“CBP”) encountered Petitioner near the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona. 

(Id. at 13-15.) At the time, he stated under oath that he had no fear of returning to

Mexico. (Id. at 17.) His 2010 removal order was reinstated, and he was removed to

Mexico. (Id. at 12, 20.) 

About three years later, on July 22, 2014, Petitioner and his wife applied for

1

admission at the San Ysidro port of entry, seeking an opportunity to apply for asylum.

(Id. at 21-24.) CBP referred both ofthemto U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(“USCIS”) for “credible fear” interviews before an asylum officer. (Id. at 35.) The

asylum officer determined that they had a credible fear of persecution or torture and

should be allowed to present their asylum applications before an IJ in removal

proceedings. (Id.) Both were placed in removal proceedings. (Id. at 31-34.) 

On September 5, 2014, Petitioner was denied release fromdetention by ICE. (Id.

at 39.) On February 11, 2015, an IJ conducted a custody review pursuant to a request

for change in custody status, and determined that Petitioner should remain in custody

pending his removal proceedings. (Id. at 48.) His next hearing before the IJ was to

take place on March 25, 2015. (Id. at 44.) 

In her petition, Petitioner seeks a stay of his removal proceedings and seeks the

Court to grant him claim for “Statutory Eligibility for Deferred Action, Pursuant to

Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality act.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 22.) He

also alleges consideration of his application for “Deferred Action USCIS Form IHis wife, Maria Judith Cardenas Sanchez, has a related petition for writ of 1

habeas corpus filed in case no. 15cv89. Her petition is nearly identical to Petitioner’s

petition. 

- 2 - [15cv0090-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00090-GPC-WVG Document 7 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 5
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

821D.” (Id. at 2.) Besides his unverified allegation, he does not attach a copy of an

application for deferred action. He also alleges facts to support his asylum claim and

also facts to support eligibility for deferred action. 

While not referenced or alleged in the petition, Respondent argues Petitioner is

seeking Deferred Status for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents

(“DAPA”) . On November 20, 2014, DHS announced its DAPA Deferred Action was 2

to be implemented in mid-to-late May 2015. (Dkt. No. 4-1, Resp’t Exs. at 49-54.) On

February 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas enjoined

implementation of DAPA. Texas v. United States, –F. Supp.3d –, 2015 WL 648579

(S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015). On May 26, 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied the government’s

motion to stay the preliminary injunction. Texas v. United States, –F.3d–, 2015 WL

3386436 (5th Cir. May 26, 2015). 

A. No Case and Controversy

Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to state a case and controversy

because DAPA has not yet been implemented and it does not appear that Petitioner

applied for DAPA relief or other deferred action. Respondent also argues that there is

no adverse action for the Court to consider and Petitioner has failed to pursue and

exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Judicial review is permitted only upon review of final orders. 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(9) (“Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation

and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising fromany action taken

or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this chapter

shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.”). Since

there does not yet appear to be a final order, judicial review is not permitted. See 

Galindo–Romero v. Holder, 640 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, habeas

relief for final orders of removal lies only with the court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. §

DAPA refers to the DHS’s recent policy to exercise prosecutorial discretion

2

with respect to parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents living in the

United States continuously since January 1, 2010. (Dkt. No. 4-1, Resp’t Exs. at 49-54.) 

- 3 - [15cv0090-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00090-GPC-WVG Document 7 Filed 07/13/15 Page 3 of 5
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

1252(a)(5); Mamigonian v Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, based on

the record before the Court, Petitioner isstill in removal proceedings and the IJ has not

yet ruled. 

In addition, “[a]n applicant’s failure to properly raise an issue to the BIA

generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving us of jurisdiction to consider

the issue.” Cervantes v. Holder, 772 F.3d 583, 590 (9th Cir. 2014). Since the case is

still in removal proceedings before the IJ, the issue has not yet been raised with the

BIA. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to exhaust. 

Moreover, while it is not clear which deferred action Petitioner is referencing,

it does not appear that he has a pending application. The Court concludes that the

petition contains no case or controversy, and is not ripe for review. 

B. Jurisdiction

Petitioner seeks a stay of his removal proceedings and appears to seek a ruling

that the Court grant him deferred action. Respondent argues that the Court does not

have jurisdiction to stay removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). 

Section 1252(g) providesthat a court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims by an alien

arising from decisions or actions by the Attorney General to commence proceedings,

adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders except as provided in that section. Reno

v. Am.-Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 477 (1999).

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) provides that,

(g) Exclusive jurisdiction

Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other

provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of

Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and

1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or

claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action

by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases,

or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). This provision was enacted to provide some measure of protection

to “no deferred” action decisions and similar discretionary determinations to abandon

prosecution at any stage in the deportation process. Reno, 525 U.S. at 483. Similarly,

the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether Petitioner is eligible for any Deferred

- 4 - [15cv0090-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00090-GPC-WVG Document 7 Filed 07/13/15 Page 4 of 5
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

Action under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Fabian–Lopez v. Holder, 540 Fed. App’x 760, 761

n. 2 (9th Cir. 2013) (“We lack jurisdiction to consider whether [petitioner] is eligible

for consideration for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”); see also Gama v.

Baran, No. 13-2162 WBX KJN, 2014 WL 1616443, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2014)

(parties agree that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider DACA eligibility). In

addition, the Court has no jurisdiction to review denials of a deferred action status

petition. Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Therefore, the Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction to stay his removal

proceedings and make a determination on his deferred action eligibility.3

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 13, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Respondent also argues that the petition should be dismissed with leave to 3

amend because Petitioner failed to name the proper Respondent by failing to name his

immediate custodian. Since the Court denies the petition, the Court need not address

this issue. 

- 5 - [15cv0090-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00090-GPC-WVG Document 7 Filed 07/13/15 Page 5 of 5