Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02341/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02341-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO MALDONADO, Civil No. 11cv2341-AJB(BLM)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241

JANET NAPOLITANO, et als ,

Respondents.

On October 6, 2011, Petitioner, a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland

Security (“DHS”), Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se, filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent filed a return to the

petition on January 13, 2012. Petitioner filed a reply on February 6, 2012. After a thorough review

of the papers and applicable law, the Court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Background 

The Court recites the background facts in the order denying Petitioner’s prior petition for

writ of habeas corpus in case no. 10cv1014-AJB(BLM).1

 (Dkt. No. 22 at 1-5.) 

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States

without inspection prior to 1996. (Pet., Ex. C.) On October 4, 1995, he married

in the United States. (Pet., Ex. A.) On November 30, 1995, Petitioner was

convicted of misdemeanor battery on his spouse and placed on probation for three

years. (Pet., Ex. B; Resp’t Ex. 39.) On September 29, 1995, the INS placed

Petitioner in deportation proceedings. (Resp’t Ex. 39.) On December 1, 1995,

the IJ granted his request to depart the United States voluntarily before June 3,

1

On November 3, 2011, this case was transferred to the undersigned judge under the Low

Number Rule as both cases appeared to involve the same or substantially the same parties, legal issues

and/or facts. (Dkt. No. 2.) 

- 1 - [11cv2341-JAH(WVG)]

Case 3:11-cv-02341-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 6
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

1996 in lieu of an order of deportation. (Resp’t Ex. 39.) Petitioner did not appeal

to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and he did not depart the United

States, so his deportation order became effective and final on June 3, 1996. 

(Resp’t Ex. 37.) On December 13, 1996, Petitioner was deported to Honduras. 

(Resp’t Ex. 39.)

In January 1997, Petitioner unlawfully returned to the United States by entering

without inspection. (Pet., Ex. C; Resp’t Ex 37.) On March 3, 2003, Petitioner

was convicted of a misdemeanor of Driving Under the Influence. (Resp’t Ex. 5.) 

Around June 22, 2001, Petitioner filed an application for temporary protected

status (“TPS”) which the INS approved. (Pet., Ex. C; Resp’t Exs. 1-4.) Because

of the two misdemeanor convictions, on April 19, 2007, the DHS withdrew his

TPS status. (Pet., Ex. B; Resp’t Exs. 5-6.) On August 24, 2007, the superior

court vacated Petitioner’s plea of his 1995 criminal case as legally invalid. (Pet.,

Ex. B; Resp’t Exs. 7-8.) Petitioner filed an appeal regarding the withdrawal of his

TPS. (Pet., Ex. B.) On October 5, 2007, the DHS denied the appeal. (Pet., Ex.

B; Resp’t Exs. 10-12.) 

On July 31, 2008, Petitioner was arrested for disorderly conduct/public

intoxication in violation of California Penal Code section 647(f). (Resp’t Ex. 37.) 

He was transferred into the custody of ICE on that same day and placed him in

removal proceedings. (Resp’t Ex. 37.) On September 18, 2008, the IJ granted

DHS’s motion and terminated removal proceedings in order for the DHS to

reinstate the prior 1995 order of deportation to Honduras. (Resp’t Exs. 16, 37.) 

However, in response to the Court’s request for additional documents, it was

realized that Respondents have not yet reinstated the 1996 deportation order. 

(Gov’t Response filed on 7/29/11, Dkt. No. 20.) On July 30, 2011, Respondent

filed a first supplemental lodgment informing the Court that on July 29, 2011,

DHS reinstated the prior deportation order. (Dkt. No. 21; Ex. 58.) 

On September 26, 2008, Petitioner filed an appeal before the BIA arguing that his

prior removal order should not have been reinstated and that he should have been

considered for TPS and Adjustment of Status. (Pet. Suppl. Brief at 7; Resp’t Ex.

37.) On February 10, 2009, the BIA dismissed the appeal. (Resp’t Exs. 13, 37.) 

On February 23, 2009, Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision and

motion for stay before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Maldonado v.

Holder, No. 09-70515. (Resp’t Exs. 13, 27.) The stay of removal was granted. 

(Resp’t Ex. 37.) On July 1, 2009, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction because its direct review of immigration cases is

limited to a review of final orders of removal. (Resp’t Exs. 13-14.) A stay of

removal was in effect from February 23, 2009 until August 28, 2009. (Resp’t

Exs. 27-28.)

In August 2009, Petitioner moved the BIA to reopen his previous 1995

deportation proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (Pet. at 7;

Pet. Suppl. Brief at 10.) On September 10, 2009, the BIA denied the August 2009

motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction because jurisdiction to review any such

motion remained with the IJ because no appeal was taken from the IJ’s December

1, 1995 decision finding Petitioner removable. (Resp’t Exs. 18, 37.) On

September 18, 2009, he filed a petition for review of the BIA’s decision and

motion for stay with the Ninth Circuit in Maldonado v. Holder, No. 09-72975 to

review the BIA’s decision. (Resp’t Ex. 32.) On April 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit

denied the petition for review upholding the BIA’s decision and dismissed the

remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, eligibility for cancellation

of removal, whether petitioner is still a candidate for TPS and whether the prior

- 2 - [11cv2341-JAH(WVG)]

Case 3:11-cv-02341-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 6
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

deportation in 1995 was valid because he failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies. (Resp’t Exs. 18-19.) A stay of removal was in effect from September

18, 2009 until June 7, 2010. (Resp’t Ex. 32.) 

On September 14, 2009, the IJ held a bond hearing and determined that, because

Petitioner was subject to a final order of removal that was not subject to judicial

review, there was no jurisdiction to conduct bond review pursuant to CasasCastrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) and/or Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008). (Resp’t Ex. 16.) He appealed the IJ’s decision. 

(Resp’t Ex. 16.) On January 27, 2010, the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision and

dismissed the appeal. (Resp’t Exs. 16-17.) 

On October 7, 2009, Petitioner moved the IJ to reopen the proceedings. (Pet. at

7.) On November 9, 2009, the IJ denied the motion to reopen as untimely. (Pet.

at 7; Resp’t Ex. 21.) The IJ specifically concluded that Petitioner did not

voluntarily depart within the time allowed in December 1, 1995 and the motion

was untimely and would not be equitably tolled because he did not show that he

acted with due diligence in pursuing his claim regarding ineffective assistance of

counsel. (Pet. Supp. Brief at 11.) He appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. (Pet.

at 7.) On April 13, 2010, the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision denying his motion to

reopen an order of deportation for failing to show that he exercised due diligence

in pursuing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Resp’t Exs. 20-22.) On

April 21, 2010, Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA decision and motion

for stay before the Ninth Circuit in Maldonado v. Holder, No. 10-71252. (Resp’t

Ex. 36.) On June 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit found the petition for review to be

appropriate for summary dismissal and set a briefing schedule for an order to

show cause why the petition should not be summarily denied. (Resp’t Ex. 23.) 

On August 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit granted respondent’s motion for summary

disposition. (Resp’t Suppl. Brief, Ex. 46-48.) The Court also held that the

agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen

because Petitioner failed to show he acted with due diligence in pursuing his

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Id.) Lastly, the Court concluded it

lacked jurisdiction to review the claim that the BIA abused its discretion in

refusing to reopen proceedings sua sponte. (Id.) A stay of removal was in effect

from April 21, 2010 until December 30, 2010. (Resp’t Suppl. Brief, Exs. 43-44.) 

In July 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen with the BIA with new evidence

and new arguments. (Pet. Suppl. Brief at 13.) On December 13, 2010, the BIA

construed Petitioner’s motion as one for reconsideration of the BIA’s decision on

April 13, 2010. (Pet’r Suppl. Brief at Doc. 16-1 at 2-3.) The BIA first stated that

the such a motion for reconsideration was untimely and alternatively, that on

previously raised issues, Petitioner has not identified any error of fact or law in

the BIA’s previously detailed decision. (Id.) Further, the BIA concluded the

motion to reopen was untimely and he had not presented any exception to the

filing requirements imposed on motion to reopen removal proceedings; and has

not demonstrated an exception situation for sua sponte reopening under 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(a). (Id.) In conclusion, the BIA denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen

and a request for a stay of deportation. (Id.) 

On December 29, 2010, Petitioner filed another petition for review of the BIA’s

denial of a motion to reopen and motion for stay in Maldonado-Aguilar v. Holder, No. 10-73937. (Id., Ex. 50.) On July 6, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an order

similar to the one filed on August 26, 2010. The Court also held that the agency

did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen because

Petitioner failed to show he acted with due diligence in pursuing his ineffective

assistance of counsel claim. (Ninth Circuit PACER, 10-73937, July 6, 2011.) 

- 3 - [11cv2341-JAH(WVG)]

Case 3:11-cv-02341-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/17/12 Page 3 of 6
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

The Court also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the claim that the BIA abused

its discretion in refusing to reopen proceedings sua sponte. (Id.) In conclusion,

the Ninth Circuit stated, “[t]he temporary stay of removal will terminate upon

issuance of the mandate.” (Id.) 

On May 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court in case

no. 10cv1014-AJB(BLM). (10cv1014-AJB(BLM), Dkt. No. 1.) On August 3, 2011, the Court

denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Id., Dkt. No. 22.) On October 6, 2011, Petitioner

filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No. 1.) Respondent filed a return and

Petitioner filed a reply. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.) 

Discussion

Petitioner alleges three claims in his petition. First, he seeks to challenge the July 29, 2011

reinstatement of a previous deportation order by the DHS. Second, he requests that the Court grant

him cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1). Third, he argues that he should be released

from detention. 

A. July 29, 2011 Reinstatement Order 

Petitioner challenges the July 29, 2011 reinstatement order of his 1996 deportation order. 

Respondent argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to address this issue. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alien detainees can properly challenge “the extent of the

Attorney’s General’s authority” to detain a removable alien under the general detention statutes. 

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001). The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and vests jurisdiction over final removal orders with the

court of appeals. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2006). Reinstatement

orders qualify as an order of removal that can only be challenged in a petition for review with the

Ninth Circuit. Morales-Izquierdo v. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010);

Gallo-Alvarez v. Ashcroft, 266 F.3d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to review the July 29, 2011

reinstatement order. It appears that Petitioner has already filed a petition for review before the Ninth

Circuit regarding the reinstatement order in Maldonado v. Holder, case no. 11-72492, filed on

August 24, 2011. (Resp’t Exs. at 58-61.) Therefore, transfer of this case to the Ninth Circuit is not

- 4 - [11cv2341-JAH(WVG)]

Case 3:11-cv-02341-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/17/12 Page 4 of 6
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

necessary. 

B. Cancellation of Removal

Petitioner asks the Court to grant his request for cancellation of removal pursuant to INA 

§ 240A(b)(1), also known as 28 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), because he meets the standard having

accrued more than 10 years of a physical presence since his last entry into the United States. He

also claims that since he previously had TPS status for over seven years, he meets the standard for

cancellation of removal. Respondent argues that the Court lacks authority to cancel removal and

adjust status. 

 The Attorney General, not the district court, has the authority to cancel removal and adjust

status in a case. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).2 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for

cancellation of removal. 

C. Release from Custody

Petitioner seeks release from custody and cites to Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th

Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit, in Diouf, held that an alien who is facing a prolonged detention under

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) is entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge and entitled to be

released on bond unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk or a danger to the

community. Diouf, 634 F.3d at 1091. 

On November 29, 2011, Petitioner received a bond hearing and the immigration judge set

bond at $5,000. (Resp’t Exs. at 63.) It does not appear that Petitioner challenges the bond hearing. 

In his reply, Petitioner acknowledges that he was granted bond pursuant to Diouf. (Reply at 5.) 

Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to show he is entitled to be released, and the Court DENIES his

request to be released from custody. 

 / / / /

/ / / /

2

The Court also notes that “[t]he reinstatement of a prior removal order bars an alien from

applying for “any relief” from removal for which he or she might previously have been eligible.” 

Morales-Izquierdo, 600 F.3d at 1080 (citing INA § 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (concluding that

once petitioner’s removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for “relief” in the form of

adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver). Since the reinstatement order was

reinstated and still valid, Petitioner cannot seek a cancellation of removal. 

- 5 - [11cv2341-JAH(WVG)]

Case 3:11-cv-02341-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/17/12 Page 5 of 6
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

/ / / /

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. 

DATED: April 17, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

- 6 - [11cv2341-JAH(WVG)]

Case 3:11-cv-02341-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/17/12 Page 6 of 6