Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03607/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03607-3/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

Case No. C 05-3607 JF

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 9/29/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAMON GAMA PUGA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of

Homeland Security, et al.,

 Respondents.

Case Number C-05-3607 JF

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION AND DENYING

MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL

[Doc. Nos. 1, 2]

On September 7, 2005, Petitioner Ramon Gama Puga (“Puga”), a native and citizen of

Mexico, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an emergency motion to stay removal from

the United States. Puga was scheduled to be removed at 7:00 p.m. on the evening of September

7, 2005. At the Court’s request, Respondents agreed to a voluntary stay of Puga’s removal until

September 30, 2005. Respondents filed an opposition to Puga’s motion for stay on September

20, 2005. Puga filed a reply on September 27, 2005.

Puga alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his asylum and removal

proceedings. According to Puga, counsel filed a “bare bones” asylum application on Puga’s

behalf for the purpose of triggering removal proceedings. Counsel’s plan apparently was to then

attempt to establish Puga’s eligibility for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b). This
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

Case No. C 05-3607 JF

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION ETC.

(JFLC2)

plan was unsuccessful; Puga was denied relief under § 1229(b) and now is subject to a final order

of removal. Puga seeks habeas review of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and a stay

of removal pending disposition of his habeas petition.

The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Puga’s claims in light of

the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), which strips district courts

of jurisdiction to review removal orders and provides that any challenge to an order of removal

must be brought by means of a petition for review filed in the appellate court. Puga asserts that

the REAL ID Act unconstitutionally suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Puga

has not cited, and the Court has not discovered, any authority for the proposition that Congress is

prohibited from designating the appellate court as the sole judicial body able to review challenges

to final orders of removal. 

Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has suggested that such exercise of

Congressional discretion is entirely appropriate. In INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), the

Supreme Court found that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(“IIRIRA”) did not suspend habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, reasoning that the

AEDPA and the IIRIRA did not clearly provide an alternate judicial forum for aliens’ claims and

did not clearly set forth Congress’ intent to preclude habeas jurisdiction. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at

314. However, the court stated that “Congress could, without raising any constitutional

questions, provide an adequate substitute [to habeas jurisdiction] through the courts of appeals,”

noting that “the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to

test the legality of a person’s detention does not violate the Suspension Clause.” Id. at 314 n.38

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The REAL ID Act clearly designates petition for review in the appellate courts as the sole

means for challenging a final order of removal, and Puga has not demonstrated that this remedy

is inadequate or ineffective. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus must be

DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the motion for stay of removal must be

DENIED. 
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

Case No. C 05-3607 JF

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION ETC.

(JFLC2)

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 9/29/05

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge
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

Case No. C 05-3607 JF

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION ETC.

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

James Todd Bennett bennettjt13@hotmail.com,

Edward A. Olsen edward.olsen@usdoj.gov,