Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00898/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00898-0/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 (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

 This case is assigned to District Judge David G. Campbell. Because Judge Campbell

is unavailable to hear Petitioner’s Emergency Motion, the motion was randomly assigned to

the undersigned.

2

 The VWP authorizes a 90-day stay without a visa in exchange for a waiver of the

right to challenge any removal action except on the basis of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(1)

and (b).

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Santiago Arrieta Sebastiani, 

Petitioner.

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0898-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner Santiago Arrieta Sebastiani (A087-907-202), who is represented by counsel,

has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1) and

an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunctive

Relief (Doc. #2).1

 The Court will deny the Motion and dismiss the Petition for lack of

jurisdiction. 

I. Petition

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Uruguay. On April 4, 2003, when he was fourteen

years old, he entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).2

 On March

Case 2:10-cv-00898-DGC--ECV Document 7 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

4, 2010, Petitioner was arrested in California on a bench warrant for failure to comply with

a state sentencing order in connection with his 2007 California petty theft conviction.

Petitioner was transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and

is now being held without bond in the Service Processing Center in Florence, Arizona. 

On March 5, 2010, ICE Assistant Field Officer Michael Vaughn issued an order for

Petitioner’s removal under the VWP for remaining in the United States longer than

authorized. Petitioner’s petition for review from the removal order is currently pending

before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Sebastiani v. Holder, No.

10-70961 (9th Cir. pet. for review filed Mar. 26, 2010). On April 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit

continued its previously-granted stay of removal pending issuance of its mandate. Id. 

In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, “Petitioner’s claim for relief rests on the

assertion that he is not subject to removal under provisions of the Visa Waiver Program

because he did not execute a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to contest removal

before an immigration judge.” (Doc. #1 at 2.) Petitioner argues that his removal order is

invalid because ICE has not produced a Form I-94W waiver signed by him or by an

authorized person on his behalf. Petitioner argues that his detention without bond is unlawful

because he is not subject to a valid order of removal.

II. Jurisdiction

 Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005),

the district courts do not have habeas corpus jurisdiction to review an order of removal. Iasu

v. Smith 511 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 2007). The REAL ID Act amended 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5) to provide that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals

in accordance 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 [Act]”). 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5). But the REAL ID Act only limits the district courts’ ability to review an order

of removal. It does not deprive the district courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction over an

alien’s claim that his ongoing detention is unlawful. Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland

Sec., 535 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2008).

Case 2:10-cv-00898-DGC--ECV Document 7 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Although Petitioner challenges his detention, he does so only on the ground that his

underlying order for removal is improper because he is not subject to removal under the

VWP. Thus, to grant his habeas corpus petition, the Court would necessarily have to

invalidate Petitioner’s order of removal. But under the REAL ID Act, the Ninth Circuit has

exclusive jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).

Because Petitioner’s detention claim is inextricably intertwined with his challenge to his

removal order, this Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction over this action.

The REAL ID Act, however, includes a jurisdictional savings provision for challenges

to removal that were mistakenly filed in the district courts. Subsection 106(c) of the REAL

ID Act provides that if any § 2241 habeas corpus case “challenging a final administrative

order of removal . . . is pending in a district court on the date of enactment, then the

district court shall transfer the case . . . to the [appropriate] court of appeals.” REAL ID Act

§106(c) (emphasis added). This action, however, cannot be transferred under § 106(c) of the

REAL ID Act because it was not pending in this Court on the date of enactment. See Iasu,

511 F.3d at 888-89. But § 106 of the REAL ID Act is not the only relevant jurisdictional

savings provision.

When a claim is improperly brought in the district court, the court must consider

whether the action should be transferred to the court of appeals pursuant to the general

jurisdiction savings provision – 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264-65

(9th Cir. 2001). Section 1631 provides: 

 Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this

title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is

noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want

of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such

action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could

have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal

shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is

transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the

court from which it is transferred. 

28 U.S.C. § 1631. The transfer statute authorizes the Court to transfer this case to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “‘if: (1) [the court of appeals] would have been

able to exercise jurisdiction on the date that [the petition was] filed in the district court; (2)

Case 2:10-cv-00898-DGC--ECV Document 7 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 4
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 district court lack[s] jurisdiction over the case[]; and (3) the transfer is in the interests of

justice.’” Baeta, 273 F.3d at 1264 (quoting Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1046 (9th

Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds, Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006)).

The Petition in this action was filed on April 23, 2010, which is more than 30 days

after Petitioner’s order of removal was issued. Thus, the first prong of the transfer test is not

satisfied because the Petition would not have been timely if it had been filed in the court of

appeals on that date. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“petition for review must be filed not later

than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”). Moreover, Petitioner’s petition

for review challenging his removal order is already pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Sebastiani, No. 10-70961 (9th Cir.). Accordingly, the Court will not transfer this action to

the Ninth Circuit. The action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

III. Temporary Restraining Order — Preliminary Injunction

Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any chance of success on the merits of

his Petition, his request for an order compelling his release will be denied. Arcamuzi v.

Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987) (if the applicant shows no

chance of success on the merits, the injunction should not issue). 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining

Order and/or Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. #2) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. #1) and this action are

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment accordingly.

DATED this 26th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00898-DGC--ECV Document 7 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 4