Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02393/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02393-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
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

1

Petitioner incorrectly names C. DeRosa as Respondent. The proper respondent is

Katrina Kane, as she is the warden of the facility where Petitioner is held. See 28 U.S.C.

§§2242, 2243 (writ shall be directed to person having custody of detainee). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leonardo Tapia, Jr, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

C. DeRosa,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-02393-FJM-MHB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE, UNITED STATES SENIOR

DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Leonardo Tapia, Jr. (A027-530-663) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (hereinafter “habeas petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). On

June 24, 2013, Respondent1

 filed his Response in Opposition, along with separately filed

additional exhibits (Doc. 14, 15, and 16). Although Petitioner did not file a Reply, he filed

a “Lodgement of Exhibits” in support of his habeas petition on September 16, 2013 (Doc.

17).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona,

claims in his habeas petition that he is being unlawfully detained by Immigration and

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 9
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 -

Customs Enforcement because he is a United States Citizen, and demands his immediate

release. (Doc. 1, at 4, 9.) Petitioner admits he did not exhaust his administrative remedies,

because he claims that there is “[n]o remedy” for Petitioner. (Id., at 4.) Respondent argues

that Petitioner’s habeas petition should be denied because Petitioner has not exhausted his

administrative remedies, and, alternatively, that it be denied on the merits. (Doc. 14.)

On April 28, 1987, immigration officials arrested Petitioner, a juvenile, for entry

without inspection, and was issued alien number 027 530 663. (Doc. 14-2, at 23.) During

that time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service processed unaccompanied juvenile

aliens by serving them with an alien registration number prior to returning them to their

country. (Id., at 24.) On June 4, 1998, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of

Arizona of one count of Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a class four felony, and one count

of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a class six felony. (Id., at 27-32.) Petitioner was

sentenced to three years of probation on the dangerous drugs count, and six months in prison

on the drug paraphernalia count. (Id.)

On August 21, 1998, Petitioner was encountered by immigration officials while

Petitioner was incarcerated at the Florence, Arizona detention facility, and determined to be

a citizen of Mexico with alien number 027 530 663. (Doc. 14-2, at 24.) On June 22, 1999,

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of Arizona of the crime of Possession of

Narcotic Drugs for Sale with One Prior Felony Conviction, a class two felony, and sentenced

to 10-years in prison. (Id., at 34-37.) 

On April 17, 2008, Petitioner applied for entry into the United States in San Luis,

Arizona, at the San Luis port-of-entry. (Doc. 14-2, at 24.) Petitioner stated to Customs and

Border Patrol Protection Officer Ramirez that he was looking for his girlfriend. (Id.) The

girlfriend had already been admitted by ambulance approximately 30 minutes earlier. (Id.)

 During his encounter with immigration officials, it was determined that Petitioner had two

prior arrests for Entry Without Inspection (“EWI”), in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1325. (Id., at

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 9
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

It was determined that Petitioner had utilized a United States Passport as proof of

citizenship to enter the United States on at least 7 occasions in 2007 and 2008. (Doc. 14-2,

at 25.)

- 3 -

24-25.) Based upon conflicting information2 however, Border Patrol agents listed

Petitioner’s citizenship as “unknown.” (Id.) Petitioner was ultimately turned over to San

Luis police for further questioning. (Id.)

In July, 2009, the Government performed a routine record check and discovered

Petitioner’s previous EWI arrests. (Doc. 14, at 3 ¶7.) On July 10, 2009, Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) placed an immigration detainer/hold on Petitioner while he was

incarcerated by the Arizona Department of Corrections. (Doc 14-2, at 11, 21.) Petitioner

was convicted, on August 13, 2009, in the Arizona state court of the crime of kidnaping, a

class 2 felony, in violation of A.R.S. §13-1304(A)(3), and sentenced to five-years in prison.

(Id., at 40-43.) On August 24, 2009, immigration officials encountered Petitioner where he

was incarcerated. (Id., at 14.) Petitioner claimed to be a United States citizen and provided

copies of a California “Delayed Registration at Birth” (hereinafter “Delayed Registration”),

a United States passport issued May 16, 2007, a Social Security card, and an Arizona

Driver’s License. (Id.) Based upon these documents, immigration officers deemed Petitioner

to be a United States citizen. (Id.)

The Delayed Registration indicated that Petitioner was born in Santa Ana, California,

on June 16, 1972, and identifies his mother as Rosa Maria Felix and his father as Leonardo

Tapia. (Doc. 14-2, at 12.) The document indicates that Petitioner’s mother signed it on

September 10, 1990, and his father on September 6, 1990. (Doc. 14-2, at 45.) The typed

notes on the Delayed Registration indicate that the registrar relied on a baptismal certificate

from Our Lady Queen of Angels Church in Los Angeles, California to determine that

Petitioner was born on June 16, 1972, in Santa Ana, California. (Id.) 

In November, 2009, the Government obtained Petitioner’s certified birth certificate

from San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico, bearing the name “Leonardo Tapia Feliz”

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 9
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

- 4 -

with a date of birth of June 16, 1072. (Doc. 14-2, at 3.) The certificate lists his mother’s

name as “Rosa Maria Felix” and his father’s name as “Leonardo Tapia-Ambriz.” (Id.) Both

parents signed the certificate, and two witnesses to their signing also signed the certificate.

(Id.) The birth certificate was recorded and registered in San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora,

Mexico, on July 24, 1972, approximately five weeks after Petitioner’s birth. (Id.) The

Government also obtained a Mexican National Registration Card, issued on September 10,

2000, bearing the name Leonardo Tapia-Felix. (Doc. 14-2, at 12.) The card lists TapiaAmbriz’s date of birth as June 16, 1972, and reflects that he was born in San Luis Rio

Colorado, Sonora, Mexico. (Id.)

On January 13, 2011, immigration officials interviewed Petitioner’s mother at her

residence and obtained a three-page sworn statement written in the Spanish language. (Doc.

14-2, at 48-59.) Petitioner’s mother stated that her son, Petitioner, was born in San Luis Rio

Colorado, Sonora, Mexico on June 16, 1972, and that the Mexican birth certificate was her

son’s birth certificate, and that she had signed it. (Id.) She also stated that Petitioner’s father

had taken her and Petitioner to the United States when Petitioner was 40 days old. (Id.) She

admitted that she had told Petitioner when he was fifteen years old that he was born in

Mexico and not a United States citizen. (Id.) She also admitted that she had signed the

Delayed Registration at an attorney’s office in Santa Ana, California at the request of

Petitioner’s father. (Id.) 

On February 15, 2012, the United States Department of State (“DOS”) sent a letter

to Petitioner revoking his United States passport, informing Petitioner that the discovery of

his the timely-filed Mexican birth certificate coupled with his mother’s statement regarding

his place of birth, warranted revocation of his passport, and instructing Petitioner to surrender

his passport to he DOS. (Doc. 14-2, at 61.) On July 31, 2012, Petitioner was apprehended

by immigration officials at the Arizona Department of Corrections and placed in removal

proceedings by the filing of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging him with being present

in the United States without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer, in violation

of 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). (Id., at 17, 64.)

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 9
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

On September 21, 2013, the immigration judge also issued an order taking “no

action” on the bond issue. (Doc. 14-3, at 14.)

- 5 -

Petitioner was ordered detained by the Department of Homeland Security Official. (Doc. 14-

3, at 16.) On August 3, 2013, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted the following

documents in support of his claim of United States citizenship in bond redetermination and

removal proceedings; a copy of his Delayed Registration, a copy of his passport, a copy of

his Social Security card; and a Baptismal Certificate. (Doc. 14-2, at 67-77; 14-3, at 1-12.)

A hearing commenced before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) on Petitioner’s claim of

United States citizenship on September 213

, and continued on October 12, 2012. On

November 30, 2012, the IJ rendered her 21-page (single spaced) written decision. (Doc. 14-

3, at 18-38.) The IJ considered, in rendering her decision, the testimony of Petitioner’s

mother Rosa Marie Felix, and Homeland Security investigators Special Agents (“SA”) Brian

Wakefield and Michael Quirk. (Id., at 19.) The IJ also admitted and considered, in pertinent

part, the following documents: (1) Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, attachments A-D, which consisted

of the Delayed Registration of Petitioner’s birth in California, a copy of Petitioner’s passport,

a copy of Petitioner’s Social Security card, a delayed baptismal certificate, a document from

the Sonoran Office of Vital Statistics, a letter from Adelina Tapia, and a transcript of the

testimony of Veronica Cruz (Doc. 14-3, at 35); (2) the following attachments to

Government’s Exhibit 6, (a) Petitioner’s Mexican birth certificate, (b) SA Wakefield’s

investigative report, (c) 2009 authenticated I-213 form, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible

Alien, (g) 2012 authenticated I-213 form, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, and (h)

Ms. Felix’s sworn statement (Id., at 19, 33-35); and (3) Petitioner’s Exhibit 10, a document

from the Sonoran Office of Vital Statistics, stating that the state of Sonora recognizes

Petitioner’s Delayed Registration (Id., at 20, 36). 

In her detailed analysis of the testimony and evidence, the IJ found that the

Government had established Petitioner’s alienage by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal

evidence.” (Doc. 14-3, at 38.) The IJ then ordered Petitioner subject to removal

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 9
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

- 6 -

proceedings. (Id.) On December 5, 2012, the Government filed a Form I-261, “Additional

Charges of Inadmissibility/Deportability,” with the immigration court charging Petitioner

with three additional basis for removability, based upon Petitioner sustaining a 1998 felony

conviction in the Arizona state court for possession of a dangerous drug, a 1998 felony

conviction in the Arizona state court for possession of drug paraphernalia, a 1999 felony

conviction in the Arizona state court for possession of narcotic drugs for sale, and a 2009

felony conviction in the state of Arizona for kidnaping. (Id., at 40.) Petitioner is currently

in custody on no bond. (Doc. 14-3, at 16.)

Petitioner appeared in court in continued removal proceedings with new counsel on

December 27, 2012. (Doc. 15-1, at 60.) The matter was continued at counsel’s request until

January 23, 2013. (Id., at 69.) On March 14, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider

the IJ’s ruling on Petitioner’s citizenship claim. (Doc. 14-3, at 43-55.) In support of the

motion, Petitioner submitted a copy of a document from the state of Sonora, Mexico, dated

December 13, 2012, that purports to confirm the nullification of Petitioner’s Mexican birth

certificate on November 12, 2012. (Id., at 53.) The Government filed a Response in

Opposition. (Id., at 58-62.) On April 30, 2013, the IJ rendered a written decision on

Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider, and, construing Petitioner’s motion as a motion to reopen,

denied relief. (Id., at 73.) The IJ found that, with the exception of the nullification order, all

of Petitioner’s proposed new evidence “was available and readily discoverable prior to the

Court’s determination regarding [Petitioner]’s alienage.

‘ (Id., at 71.) The IJ further found that, although the nullification order “could not have been

presented prior to November 2012, both of the proposed witnesses (i.e., the attorney and the

Mexican government official) were available and could have been called as witnesses prior

to the Court’s decision. Indeed, the attorney who litigated the nullification, ... could have

offered testimony with respect to his efforts to nullify, ...and could have offered testimony

regarding the evidence he presented to the Mexican court in favor of nullification.”

(emphasis in original) (Id., at 71-72.) The IJ then considered whether or not the introduction

of the nullification order would have compelled a different conclusion as to Petitioner’s

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 9
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

- 7 -

alienage, and found that it would not, noting that “the nullification order was entered more

than four decades after [Petitioner] was born, ... and was entered while [Petitioner] was in

removal proceedings,” and that, “in contrast, [Petitioner]’s Mexican birth certificate was

made close in time to [his] birth.” (Id., at 72.)

On May 10, 2013, Petitioner appeared before the IJ, at which time the IJ sustained the

factual allegations on the original charge of Petitioner’s inadmissibility pursuant to

212(a)(6)(Ai), and the additional factual allegations of inadmissibility contained in the NTA

and Form I-261, and ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. (Doc. 15-1, at 26-30.) Due to

his criminal convictions, he is subject to mandatory custody pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226(c).

On June 4, 2013, Petitioner filed an appeal of the IJ’s decision “in merits” proceeding. (Doc.

14-3, at 64.) On November 8, 2012, Petitioner filed his habeas petition, claiming as his only

grounds for relief, that he is a native and citizen of the United States and continues to be

illegally detained. (Doc. 1, at 4.)

On October 31, 2013, the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered Petitioner’s case

remanded for further proceedings, and that Petitioner be given the opportunity to submit

additional evidence that is relevant to his claim of United States citizenship, and that the IJ

should issue a new decision regarding Petitioner’s alienage. (Doc. 19-1, at 3-5.)

DISCUSSION

In Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 711 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals concluded that the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. §1252, does not strip

the federal district court of jurisdiction when a petitioner does not challenge any final order

of removal, but merely challenges his detention prior to the issuance of any such order.

Generally, challenges to an alien’s detention must be administratively exhausted before filing

a habeas claim in the federal district court. Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th

Cir. 2011). A nationality claim, such as Petitioner’s, need not be exhausted because only an

“alien” is required to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1). See,

Theagene v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). “Congress has never enacted a

statute that would deprive a citizen of his right to a judicial determination of the legality of

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 9
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

- 8 -

his detention simply because his case is pending before an administrative agency.” FloresTorres, 548 F.3d at 712 n. 6; Sandoval-Vela v. Napolitano, 2010 WL 364221, *7 (S.D. Cal.

2010) (a non-frivolous claim to derivative citizenship need not be exhausted before it can be

considered by the court).

Courts may, however, require prudential exhaustion before reaching the merits, if “(1)

agency expertise makes agency consideration necessary to generate a proper record and reach

a proper decision; (2) relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass

of the administrative scheme; and (3) administrative review is likely to allow the agency to

correct its own mistakes and to preclude the need for judicial review.'" Puga v. Chertoff, 488

F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 881 (9th

Cir. 2003)); Sandoval-Vela, 2010 WL 364221 *7 (district court has discretion to reach the

merits or require exhaustion). Exhaustion may be excused if pursuing an administrative

remedy would be futile. Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir.

1993).

Considering the above criteria, the Court finds that Petitioner should be required to

exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief. First, this case is

distinguishable from Flores-Torres in that Petitioner’s citizenship claim is intertwined with

his removal proceeding and is still before the IJ, who, in presiding over the hearings, heard

testimony and considered evidence, and issued a detailed 21-page decision analyzing the law

and facts presented. The IJ also received evidence on Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider, and

issued another detailed order analyzing the law and facts. The case is now back before the

same IJ with direction from the BIA to reopen the hearing and hear additional evidence, and

create a complete record for review. This court would be no adequate substitute for the

expertise of the administrative agency in reviewing Petitioner’s claim to citizenship. Second,

relaxing the requirement of administrative exhaustion would encourage the deliberate bypass

of the administrative scheme, in that anyone with a citizenship claim could proceed directly

to federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding without any administrative review of the

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 -

claim. Third, the administrative review process is likely to allow the agency to correct its

own mistakes, as is evidenced here by the BIA order of remand. 

Furthermore, Petitioner has an additional remedy if the BIA were to affirm an IJ

denial of citizenship claim and issue an order of removal. Petitioner could then file a petition

for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that court found issues of material

fact about Petitioner’s nationality, it “shall transfer the proceeding to the district court of the

United States for the judicial district in which the petitioner resides for a new hearing on the

nationality claim.” 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(5)(B). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DENIED.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02393-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 9