Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00060/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00060-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241in Habeas Corpus: INS

---

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

Cristobal Ramos Quiroz,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 17cv60-WQH-JMA

ORDER

v.

Immigration,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the “Motion for: Habeas For A Writ of Habeas

Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (ECF No. 13). 

On January 6, 2017, Petitioner Cristobal Ramos Quiroz filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). On February 9, 2017,

the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the Petition should not be granted. (ECF

No. 6). On February 2, 2017, Petitioner submitted a document titled “Motion: for

Habeas For A Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” to the Court. (ECF No.

13). The Court inadvertently failed to docket the motion prior to issuing the Order on

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

In its return filed on February 23, 2017, the Government contended that this

Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because Petitioner seeks review of an order of

removal. Id. at 6. The return filed by the Government advised the Court of the Board

of Immigration Appeals Order filed on January 18, 2017. (ECF No. 8 at 4). Petitioner

did not file a traverse. On March 29, 2017, the Court denied the Petition for Writ of

- 1 - 17cv60-WQH-JMA

Case 3:17-cv-00060-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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

Habeas Corpus. The Order stated, 

In this matter, Petitioner seeks review of an order of removal. The

Petitioner seeks “reinstatement of my lawful permanent resident status”

and contends that he was wrongfully deported in 1999. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 3). The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant Petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

(ECF No. 10). On March 29, 2017, a Clerk’s Judgment was issued. (ECF No. 11). 

 In the instant motion, which has now been docketed on the record, Petitioner

provides additional material regarding the denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum

on August 25, 2016 and the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals on January

18, 2017 affirming that order.1

 (ECF No. 13 at 18-32). Petitioner also references a

hearing before the Immigration Judge on January 23, 2017. Id. at 6. The motion seeks

the same relief as the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus — a review of an order of

removal. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant matter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)

(“Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including

section 2241 of Title 28, ... a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of

appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for

judicial review of an order of removal.”); Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622

(9th Cir. 2012).

The “Motion: for Habeas For A Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”

filed by Petitioner is DENIED. (ECF No. 13). The case shall remain closed. The Clerk

shall issue a second judgment. 

DATED: April 25, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

1

 The Government had previously informed the Court of the January 18, 2017 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. (ECF No. 8 at 4). 

- 2 - 17cv60-WQH-JMA

Case 3:17-cv-00060-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2