Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02719/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 460
Nature of Suit: Deportation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN COLMENERO DURAN, No. CIV.S-04-2719 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

INS,

Defendant.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on May 13, 2005, at 11:00

a.m. for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. There was no

appearance on behalf of plaintiff. Assistant United States Attorney

Audrey Hemesath appeared specially on behalf of defendant.

As discussed on the record and in open court during the

status conference, plaintiff initiated this action on December 27,

2004, by filing a document styled as a “Petition for De Novo

Immigration Review.” Liberally construed, that document indicates

that plaintiff is seeking judicial review of a denial of an

application for cancellation of removal by the Immigration Court in

Case 2:04-cv-02719-GEB-DAD Document 6 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

San Francisco. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) provides that such a

petition “shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial

circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings.” 

See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 856 (9th Cir.

2004)(confirming the court of appeals jurisdiction to review a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying a motion to

reopen applications for cancellation of removal which was based on

ineffective assistance of counsel claim); Tinoco v. Ridge, 359 F.

Supp. 2d 1042, 1047 (S.D. Cal. 2005)(“Today, when an alien challenges

an order of removal, review generally begins in the federal courts of

appeal, through [Immigration and Nationality Act] § 242's direct

review.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

(20) days of the date this order is filed why this case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(3)(“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,

the court shall dismiss the action.”). Failure to timely file the

required writing will result in a recommendation of dismissal.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to deliver a copy of

this order to the attention of Audrey Hemesath at the Office of the 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02719-GEB-DAD Document 6 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California.

DATED: May 20, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\duran2719.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02719-GEB-DAD Document 6 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 3