Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00958/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00958-3/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

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER HABEAS CASE TO NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

C 05-0958-RMW 1

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS, SCSBN 9990

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9 Floor th

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6915

FAX: (415) 436-6927

Email: edward.olsen@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Respondents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PERLITO CAPILI SULIT and )

ESTELA SULIT, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department )

of Homeland Security, CHARLES DEMORE, )

District Director, Immigration and Customs )

Enforcement, NANCY ALCANTAR, Field )

Office Director, Immigration and Customs )

Enforcement, and ALBERTO GONZALES, )

Attorney General of the United States, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

Case No. C 05-0958-RMW

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER CASE

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT;

AND [] ORDER

The petitioners filed the above-entitled petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 7, 2005,

alleging, inter alia, that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) entry of a deportation order in

the first instance is ultra vires, thereby rendering the BIA’s March 26, 1996 deportation order a

nullity.

On November 7, 2005, this Court granted the respondents’ unopposed request to hold the case

in abeyance pending resolution of an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit in Lolong v. Gonzales, No. 03-72384, because the parties anticipated that in that case

Case 5:05-cv-00958-RMW Document 23 Filed 08/24/07 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

27

28

The mandate issued on June 29, 2007. 1

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER HABEAS CASE TO NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

C 05-0958-RMW 2

the Ninth Circuit would address: (1) whether the courts of appeals or the district courts have

jurisdiction to review the type of claim that petitioner raises in this action, and (2) whether the BIA

acts ultra vires when it issues a removal order in the first instance rather than remanding to the

Immigration Judge for entry of a removal order after there has been an admission or finding of

removability.

The Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Lolong on May 7, 2007. In Lolong, the Court of 1

Appeals assumed jurisdiction and rejected the petitioner’s argument that the BIA acted ultra vires

when it entered a removal order in the first instance. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173 (9 Cir. th

2007) (en banc). The court held that where “the IJ has previously determined that the alien is

removable, but grants cancellation of removal, the BIA’s decision to reverse the cancellation of

removal reinstates the initial finding of removability, which, under the statute, is effectively an

order of removal. Lolong, 484 F.3d at 1178.

 The respondents believe that Lolong disposes of the petitioners’ claim that the BIA acted

ultra vires when it entered the petitioners’ March 26, 1996 deportation order. The petitioner

believes that Lolong is not controlling since the present action involves a different statutory and

regulatory scheme in deportation proceedings commenced and completed before the enactment of

the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

The parties agree that this case must be transferred to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to the REAL

ID Act of 2005, which provides that habeas petitions pending in district courts on the effective

date of the Act shall be transferred to the court of appeals to be treated as petitions for review. See

Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 106(c), 119 Stat. 231, 311 (May 11, 2005); Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038,

1041 (9 Cir. 2006). th

The parties agree that, pending the transfer of the proceedings to the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit and until issuance of notice of docketing of the petition for review, the respondents

agree not to deport the petitioners from the United States.

Case 5:05-cv-00958-RMW Document 23 Filed 08/24/07 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

27

28

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER HABEAS CASE TO NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

C 05-0958-RMW 3

Dated: August 22, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

/s/

EDWARD A. OLSEN

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: August 22, 2007 /s/

JAMES TODD BENNETT

Attorney for Petitioners

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00958-RMW Document 23 Filed 08/24/07 Page 3 of 3