Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02801/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02801-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN ALBERTO ZIRANDO TINOCO,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEH JOHNSON, Secretary, Department 

of Homeland Security, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 15-02801 WHA

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS AND DENYING

REQUEST FOR STAY OF

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

INTRODUCTION

In this habeas action, petitioner requests a stay of his removal proceedings and an order

compelling respondents to adjudicate his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals application. 

For the reasons stated below, the petition and request for a stay are DENIED.

STATEMENT

Petitioner Juan Alberto Zirando Tinoco is a twenty-eight-year-old Mexican national who

has resided in the United States since his parents brought him here as baby, though he has never

acquired legal status. He grew up in Butte County, California, and graduated from high school in

2005. In 2007, Tinoco pled no contest to a charge of disturbing the peace under California Penal

Code Section 415, with a gang enhancement under California Penal Code Section 186.22(d), as

he allegedly associated with the Norteño gang. Based on those criminal proceedings, the United

Case 3:15-cv-02801-WHA Document 17 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 4
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

States Department of Homeland Security deemed Tinoco a removeable alien present in the United

States without legal status (Gov’t Exh. 1 at 5–7).

In 2012, Immigration Judge Amy Hoogasian denied Tinoco’s application for a

cancellation of removal proceedings. Tinoco administratively appealed, lost, and then sought

review by our court of appeals, which dismissed his appeal in February of this year. The mandate

issued in April. Immigration and Customs Enforcement then took Tinoco into immigration

custody. Two days later, Tinoco applied for relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals program, which allows the Department of Homeland Security, in its discretion, to

exempt certain undocumented immigrants from deportation. Tinoco’s DACA application was

promptly denied for failure to pay the filing fee (Petitioner Exh. LL; Gov’t Exhs. 5–6).

One day after his DACA application had been denied, on June 20, 2015, Tinoco filed the

instant habeas petition along with a motion for a TRO requesting a stay of removal proceedings

until a renewed DACA application could considered. After a brief hearing on the motion for a

TRO, the parties stipulated to a briefing schedule and agreed to stay the removal proceedings

until the matter had been adjudicated by the undersigned judge. 

Tinoco submitted a renewed DACA application on June 25. After all of the briefing had

been submitted in this matter, respondents filed a notice that the Department of Homeland

Security denied Tinoco’s DACA application on July 9. This order follows full briefing and oral

argument. 

ANALYSIS

In 2012, former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced the DACA

program, under which the Department of Homeland Security would exercise its prosecutorial

discretion to focus enforcement efforts away from low priority cases. The announcement listed

several criteria for DACA eligibility, including the age at which the candidate entered the United

States, his education level, and his criminal history. 

Federal courts, however, lack subject-matter jurisdiction to determine DACA eligibility,

as stated in 8 U.S.C. 1252(g): “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

Case 3:15-cv-02801-WHA Document 17 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 4
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

proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.” 

Our court of appeals has confirmed that federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction, stating: 

“We lack jurisdiction to consider whether [petitioner] is eligible for consideration for Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Fabian-Lopez v. Holder, 540 Fed. App’x 760, 761 n. 2 (9th Cir.

2013).

The thrust of Tinoco’s petition is that based on our court of appeals’ recent decision in

Hernandez-Gonzalez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 2015), his renewed DACA application

could be granted. Hernandez-Gonzalez held that a conviction with a gang enhancement under

California law does not categorically make that conviction one of moral turpitude for immigration

purposes. Thus, Tinoco requested that his current removal proceedings be stayed and that the

Department of Homeland Security be ordered to adjudicate his DACA application. After all of

the briefing in this matter had been filed, however, the Department of Homeland Security denied

Tinoco’s renewed DACA application (Dkt. No. 16). The relief Tinoco requested has therefore

already occurred, as his DACA application has been adjudicated, rendering his petition and

request for a stay moot. 

Tinoco’s petition also makes vague reference to challenging the removal proceedings

themselves. At oral argument, Tinoco’s counsel reiterated this point and relied on our court of

appeals’ decision in Singh v. Gonzalez, 499 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2007). Under federal law,

however, district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over final orders of removal. 

Specifically, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) states:

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,

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 entered or issued under

any provision of this chapter.

Our court of appeals has confirmed that district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final

orders of removal. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005); Arce

v. Holder, No. C 12–04063 WHA, 2012 WL 3276994, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012). Moreover,

as the undersigned judge found in Arce, our court of appeals’ holding in Singh does not apply to

Case 3:15-cv-02801-WHA Document 17 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

the present case. Singh related to petitions asserting ineffective assistance of counsel claims —

no such claim was made here. Also at oral argument, but not in his briefing, Tinoco’s counsel

contended that the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination

Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999) established subject-matter jurisdiction over removal

proceedings. Not so. That decision explicitly held that “8 U.S.C. 1252(g) deprives the federal

courts of jurisdiction over respondents’ claims.” Id. at 492. Therefore, if reversal of the final

order of removal is the relief Tinoco seeks, it cannot be granted by the undersigned judge.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and request for a stay

are DENIED. The next step is an appeal to the court of appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02801-WHA Document 17 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 4