Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07057/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07057-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 460
Nature of Suit: Deportation
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGELIO BARRAGAN-CAMPOS,

Petitioner,

 v.

 MICHAEL CHERTOFF et al.,

Respondents.

 /

No. C 06-07057 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

Petitioner filed this immigration habeas corpus action just before the December

holidays. The Court ordered the government to release petitioner and stay his deportation. 

Now pending before the Court is the government’s response to the petition, which argues that

the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and petitioner’s reply.

BACKGROUND 

In 1989, petitioner was ordered deported under the name Rigoberto Toscano-Cortes. 

Shortly thereafter petitioner, who was still in the United States or had returned to the United

States, began to exclusively use the name Rogelio Barragan-Campos. He married and had

children, all of whom are United States citizens. In 1998, petitioner received an INS notice

to appear, charging petitioner (under the name Barragan-Campos) and his wife with entering

the United States without permission. Petitioner and his wife initially sought cancellation of

removal; however, they subsequently voluntarily abandoned their cancellation applications 

Case 3:06-cv-07057-CRB Document 31 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

and agreed to voluntarily leave the country. Before they departed, petitioner’s current

counsel made an appearance and successfully petitioned the immigration court to reopen the

removal proceedings and reinstate the application for cancellation of removal on the ground

that petitioner’s previous counsel was incompetent.

Petitioner and the immigration court were made aware in October 2003 that the

government was contending that petitioner had been ordered deported in 1989; however, the

government failed to provide petitioner with any evidence of that deportation order. At a

November 6, 2006 hearing on petitioner’s cancellation of removal, the government suddenly

produced a copy of the deportation order and evidence that apparently showed petitioner’s

fingerprints matched those of the person ordered deported in 1989. The immigration judge

immediately terminated the cancellation of removal proceedings and petitioner’s prior order

of removal was reinstated. Petitioner was taken into custody.

Petitioner responded by filing a habeas petition in this Court. The Court ordered

petitioner’s deportation stayed and that he be released (in time for the holidays) and set a

hearing for Friday, January 5, 2007. The government has responded by moving to dismiss. 

Petitioner opposes dismissal and has filed a motion to amend his petition to challenge the

1989 deportation order. He contends that the order is erroneous because at the time it was

entered he was legally in the United States.

Since the Court issued the stay, petitioner has filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit

for review of the reinstated 1989 deportation order. He has also filed an appeal with the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) seeking review of the immigration judge’s

November 7, 2006 decision to terminate removal proceedings. A stay of deportation has

been issued in that proceeding.

DISCUSSION

The government moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Court lacks

jurisdiction. The petition makes essentially two claims: (1) a challenge to the order

reinstating the 1989 deportation order, and (2) a challenge to the immigration judge’s

decision to terminate removal proceedings.

Case 3:06-cv-07057-CRB Document 31 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

A. The Order Reinstating the 1989 Deportation Order

The government moves to dismiss petitioner’s claim challenging the reinstatement of

the 1989 deportation order on the ground that he has not exhausted his available judicial

remedies. Specifically, petitioner has now filed a petition for review of the reinstatement

order with the Ninth Circuit. The government agrees that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction

to review the petition; accordingly, it argues that since petitioner has not yet exhausted this

proper avenue of relief, this Court cannot, or at least should not, entertain this claim.

Petitioner responds that at the time he filed his habeas petition he could not have filed

with the Ninth Circuit because he did not yet have a copy of the order of reinstatement. 

Nonetheless, he has now filed; there is no reason the Ninth Circuit should not first rule on the

issue, especially when the government concedes that the court has jurisdiction to do so. 

Petitioner also argues that he has not had the opportunity to make a factual record in support

of his petition. That is an argument to be made to the Ninth Circuit.

In any event, “[o]n May 11, 2005, Congress enacted the REAL ID Act of 2005, which

expanded the jurisdiction of the circuit courts over final orders of removal.” Alvarez-Barajas

v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005). The Act 

makes the circuit courts the “sole” judicial body able to review challenges to

final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal. REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No.

109-13, 119 Stat. 231, § 106(a). To accomplish this streamlined judicial

review, the Act eliminated habeas jurisdiction, including jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal. In

writing the REAL ID Act, Congress expressly made these judicial review

provisions retroactive.

Id. “The REAL ID Act requires district courts to transfer all habeas petitions brought by

aliens that were pending before the district court on the effective date of the REAL ID Act

(May 11, 2005) to the appropriate circuit court, which must treat the transferred petitions as

timely filed petitions for review.” Id. Thus, under the Act, this Court lacks jurisdiction to

hear petitioner’s claim.

Accordingly, petitioner’s challenge to the reinstatement of the deportation order is

DISMISSED without prejudice in favor of his Ninth Circuit petition.

Case 3:06-cv-07057-CRB Document 31 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

B. The Order Terminating the Removal Proceedings

The government also moves to dismiss petitioner’s challenge to the immigration

judge’s decision to terminate the removal proceedings on the ground that petitioner has not

exhausted his remedies before the BIA. Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th

Cir. 2000) (“We generally will not consider a claim of error that the BIA has not first been

given the opportunity to correct because to do so deprives us of the benefit of the agency’s

expertise and a fully developed record”). After petitioner filed this habeas petition, he filed

an appeal of the immigration judge’s decision with the BIA which, of course, has not yet

been ruled upon. As the BIA has not yet ruled, this Court should not review the immigration

judge’s decision. This claim, too, is DISMISSED without prejudice in favor of the BIA

proceedings.

C. Stay of Deportation

Having dismissed the claims in the petition, the Court’s stay of deportation must be

vacated. In any event, the immigration judge apparently issued a stay of deportation pending

the BIA’s determination of petitioner’s appeal. And, petitioner can seek a stay from the

Ninth Circuit. Moreover, the government has agreed not to take petitioner into custody while

there is stay in place from the immigration judge, the BIA or the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner’s

objection to the conditions of his release are not well-taken; petitioner offers no authority for

this Court granting the relief petitioner seeks. Moreover, petitioner has not established good

cause for such relief.

D. Motion to Amend the Petition

Petitioner has also filed a motion to amend the petition to make a constitutional

challenge to the original 1989 order of deportation. After reviewing the parties’ papers,

including the motion to amend, the Court concludes that it must dismiss the petition without

prejudice, but also without leave to amend. 

There is a serious question whether in light of the REAL ID Act this Court would

have jurisdiction to address the proposed new claim. While the Ninth Circuit concluded in 

Arreloa-Arreloa v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 956, 963-64 (9th Cir. 2004), that it does not have

Case 3:06-cv-07057-CRB Document 31 Filed 01/10/07 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\7057\orderofdismissal.wpd 5

jurisdiction to review a challenge to an original deportation order underlying an order

reinstating deportation, and therefore the district courts must have habeas jurisdiction to

consider such challenges, that conclusion was reached before the enactment of the REAL ID

Act. The government argues that the REAL ID Act deprives a district court of jurisdiction to

hear challenges to final orders of removal and, importantly, gives Courts of Appeal

jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the original order of deportation. The Fifth

Circuit so held in Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit

has not addressed the issue.

Petitioner responds that he has not had an opportunity to develop a factual record to

support his challenge to the deportation order. He has not shown, however, that he cannot

make that argument to the Ninth Circuit or the BIA. For example, the Ninth Circuit may

remand his proceedings to the immigration judge, or the BIA may order the removal

proceedings reinstated and therefore give him the opportunity to develop that argument. In

the procedural posture of this case, petitioner’s proposed new claim is premature.

CONCLUSION

The petition for habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust judicial and

administrative remedies and for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner must pursue his BIA appeal

and his Ninth Circuit petition. The dismissal is without prejudice and without leave to

amend. The Court’s stay of deportation is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2007

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07057-CRB Document 31 Filed 01/10/07 Page 5 of 5