Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00365/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00365-0/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 (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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Georgina Fernandes, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Philip Crawford; et al. 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-365-PHX-NVW (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and

complaint for declaratory relief filed by the petitioner, Georgina Fernandes, on July 26, 2007.

[doc. # 24] Fernandes argues the respondents are unlawfully preventing her from returning to

this country subsequent to her removal. The respondents filed an answer on August 15, 2007

[doc. # 28], and a supplement on November 9, 2007 [doc. # 38]. Fernandes filed a reply on

January 7, 2008. [doc. # 42]

 Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for a Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, dismiss the petition. This court has no jurisdiction to review an order of removal.

//

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-00365-NVW Document 43 Filed 01/09/08 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

1

 According to the respondents, the original appeal to the BIA was taken only in the names of

the children. (Respondents’ amended answer, Exhibit C.) The motion to rescind and reissue therefore

could not have changed Fernandes’ legal position.

- 2 -

Summary of the Case

Fernandes is a native and citizen of Angola who applied for asylum on her own behalf

and on behalf of her two children. (Second amended petition, p. 5.) The immigration judge

denied her application on November 15, 2001. (Respondents’ answer, pp. 2-3.); [doc. # 28]

Fernandes maintains her counsel filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA). (Second amended petition, p. 5.) This appeal, she asserts, was dismissed two years later

for lack of jurisdiction. Id. Unfortunately, her attorney did not receive a copy of the notice of

dismissal which was returned as undelivered. Id.

The respondents maintain Fernandes did not file an appeal on her own behalf, but

appeals were received on behalf of her three children. (Respondents’ answer, p. 3.) The

appeals were dismissed as untimely on January 2, 2004. Id.

Fernandes was taken into custody on December 28, 2006. (Respondents’ answer, pp.

2-3.) It appears that Fernandes, at this point, retained her current counsel. (Respondents’

answer, Exhibit C, ¶ 8.)

On January 8, 2007, Fernandes filed a motion to rescind and reissue1

 claiming ineffective

assistance of counsel and a motion to stay removal. (Second amended petition, p. 5.)

(Respondents’ answer, p. 3.) Counsel called Fernandes’ deportation officer and an employee

with the BIA’s emergency stay of removal section to make them aware of the pending motions.

(Second amended petition, pp. 5-6.) Nevertheless, Fernandes was removed on February 17,

2007. Id.; (Respondents’ answer, p. 3.) On this date, at 3:41 p.m., Mountain Standard Time

(MST), Agent Benvenue escorted Fernandes onto a flight from Washington Dulles International

Airport to Brussels Airport in Zaventum, Belgium. (Respondents’ answer, Exhibit B.) The

flight landed at approximately 5:30 A.M., MST, Sunday, February 18, 2007. Id. From there,

she boarded a flight to Angola. Id.

Case 2:07-cv-00365-NVW Document 43 Filed 01/09/08 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 -

While the original flight was still en route to Belgium on February 17, 2007 at 8:29 p.m.,

MST, Fernandes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory relief

in this court. (Second amended petition, p. 3.) She has since filed an amended petition and the

instant second amended petition. Fernandes claims her original attorney was ineffective. He

failed to present her asylum application effectively at the removal hearing and failed to apply

for voluntary departure. 

In their answer, the respondents argue the petition should be dismissed because

Fernandes was not in custody when she filed her original petition, the court has no jurisdiction

over the respondents, the REAL ID Act divests the district court of jurisdiction, Fernandes

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and the petition fails to assert a constitutional

claim.

Fernandes filed a notice of appeal in her own name with the BIA on March 28, 2007.

(Respondents’ amended answer, p. 4.) The BIA granted review on May 7, 2007, but ultimately

dismissed the appeal on October 9, 2007, because Fernandes had been removed on February 17,

2007, and the BIA was without jurisdiction to review the appeal. (Petitioner’s reply, Exhibit

1.) 

Discussion

This court lacks jurisdiction over Fernandes’ claim that counsel rendered ineffective

assistance before the immigration judge resulting in her removal. The REAL ID Act of 2005,

provides that a petition for review with the courts of appeals is the “sole and exclusive means

for judicial review of an order of removal. . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Accordingly, this court

is without jurisdiction over the instant petition. See Iasu v. Smith, 06-55681, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir.

2007).

Fernandes argues this court has jurisdiction because she is not contesting her order of

removal. Instead, she objects to the fact that she has been removed and is statutorily barred

from reentering the country for a period of up to ten years. She petitions the court to return her

Case 2:07-cv-00365-NVW Document 43 Filed 01/09/08 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 -

to the United States so “her asylum and voluntary departure applications may be reconsidered

and considered, respectively.” (Second amended petition, p. 5.)

Fernandes’ argument that she is objecting to the collateral effects of her removal rather

than to the removal itself is a distinction without a difference. These collateral effects do not

arise independently from the removal order itself. Accordingly, her petition is a challenge to

the removal order which must be directed to the court of appeals. See Singh v. Gonzales, 499

F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Post-REAL ID Act cases considering the applicability of § 1252

have also distinguished between challenges to orders of removal and challenges that arise

independently.”). The court does not reach the respondents’ alternate grounds for dismissal.

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, dismiss the second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for

declaratory relief filed by the petitioner, Georgina Fernandes, on July 26, 2007. [doc. # 24]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondents.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00365-NVW Document 43 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 4