Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00547/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00547-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VARTAN FRNZLIAN, HARUTYOUN

FRNZLIAN, GRIGOR FRNZLIAN, NVARD

FRNZLIAN and AGHAVNI HAKOBYAN,

Petitioners,

v.

NANCY ALCANTAR, FIELD OFFICE

DIRECTOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM

ENFORCEMENT, COMMANDER WALL,

WARDEN OF LERDO DETENTION

FACILITY, ALBERTO GONZALES,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED

STATES, MICHAEL CHERTOFF

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondents.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-00547 OWW HC

ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS RE: ORDER OF REMOVAL

OR DEPORTATION TO COURT OF

APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE ID

PROTECT ACT OF 2005

Petitioners, Vartan Frnzlian and his family members, bring

this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Jurisdiction is invoked under the Constitution of the United

States, the Suspension Clause, and the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA) 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., as amended by the

Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(IIRIRA), seeking Vartan’s release from custody and abrogation of

Case 1:05-cv-00547-OWW -LJO Document 25 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 5
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

an order of removal. Petitioners claim ineffective assistance of

counsel throughout Vartan’s immigration proceedings that resulted

in a denial of due process of law. Vartan’s petition for review

before the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit was dismissed by

order filed May 14, 2004. 

Petitioner Vartan Frnzlian was taken into custody March 2,

2005, and is currently held at the Lerdo Detention Facility at

17645 Industrial Farm Rd., Bakersfield, California in the Eastern

District of California, Fresno Division. The family members

listed above in the petition were included in the deportation

order and are under ICE supervision and threatened with imminent

deportation. The deportation order for Vartan Frnzlian’s removal

from the United States was issued February 6, 2002.

Petitioner has moved for his immediate release from custody,

at the Lerdo Facility, where he is held pursuant to the

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). He claims he is not a danger

to the community, is not a flight risk, and his detention denies

him due process of law during the pendency of these proceedings. 

This case was filed in the District Court for the Eastern

District of California (Fresno) on April 25, 2005. A hearing on

an application for temporary stay and restraining order to enjoin

the removal of Vartan Frnzlian was held in open court on April

27, 2005, at which time a temporary stay and restraining order

against Petitioners’ removal were entered.

Hearing on Vartan’s application for temporary stay,

preliminary injunction, and release from custody was held in open

court on May 12, 2005. Petitioner was not personally present and

appeared through his attorney Gittell Gordon, Esq. The Federal

Case 1:05-cv-00547-OWW -LJO Document 25 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Respondents appeared by and through Assistant United States

Attorneys Audrey Hemesath, Esq., and Marianne Pansa, Esq. 

At the May 12, 2005, hearing the Court was provided with a

copy of the REAL ID ACT of 2005 effective May 11, 2005, the date

it was signed into law by the President. The REAL ID ACT OF 2005

amends 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) by adding at the end the following: 

(5) EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF REVIEW. –- Notwithstanding any

other provision of law (statutory or non-statutory),

including section 2241 Title 28, United States Code, 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 Act, except as

provided in subsection (e). (Emphasis added) (The

Court has been unable to find subsection (e)). 

. . . .

(c) Transfer of Cases. –- If an alien’s case, brought

under section 2241 of Title 28 United States Code, and

challenging a final administrative order of removal,

deportation, or exclusion is pending in a district

court on the date of the enactment of this decision,

then the district court shall transfer the case (or the

part of the case that challenges the order of removal,

deportation, or exclusion) to the court of appeals for

the circuit in which a petition for review could have

properly been filed under section 242(b)(2) of the

Immigration & Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252), . . . .

The Court of appeals shall treat the transferred case

as if it had been filed pursuant to a petition for

review under such section 242 except that subsection

(b)(1) of such section shall not apply. 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Real ID Act of 2005 this is a

pending case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that challenges an order of

deportation or removal. It must be transferred to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

With respect to Petitioners’ request that the District Court

continue a stay and/or injunctive order in effect pending outcome

of the case in the Court of Appeal, reference is made to Ninth

Case 1:05-cv-00547-OWW -LJO Document 25 Filed 05/13/05 Page 3 of 5
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

Circuit Court of Appeals General Order 6.4 Emergency Motions (c)

Motions for Stay of Deportation or Removal in Petitions for

Review, which provides in material part: “Upon the filing of a

motion or request for stay of removal or deportation, the order

of removal or deportation is temporarily stayed until further

order of the court.” 

At the hearing the government requested that the District

Court not order a further stay or injunctive relief, in reliance

upon the Court of Appeal’s rule providing for temporary stay of

removal or deportation in motions for stay of deportation or

removal and petitions for review under General Order 6.4(c)1. In

reliance upon the implied representation of the government’s

attorneys that no removal or deportation action will be

undertaken pending transfer of this case to the Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit, no further orders for stay or injunctive

relief are required in the District Court which lacks

jurisdiction to address the 2241 petition for review of the order

for deportation or removal. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is TRANSFERRED to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as required by the REAL ID ACT OF

2005, section 5(c); 

2. No further stay or injunctive relief against

deportation of Petitioners is required based on Ninth Circuit

General Order 6.4(c); and 

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00547-OWW -LJO Document 25 Filed 05/13/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. The request for immediate release from custody is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DATED: May 12, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_____________________________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

frnzlian order re transfer

Case 1:05-cv-00547-OWW -LJO Document 25 Filed 05/13/05 Page 5 of 5