Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00089/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00089-0/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 (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

MARIA JUDITH CARDENAS

SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 15cv0089-GPC(WVG)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241

ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General

of the United States; LEON

RODRIGUEZ, Director of the USCIS

Respondents.

On January 15, 2015, Petitioner Maria Judith Cardenas Sanchez (“Petitioner”),

proceeding pro se, and currently released on bond from custody from the Department

of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”),

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a stay

of her removal proceedings and a ruling on her application for “deferred action.”

Respondent filed a response on February 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 3.) Petitioner did not file

a reply. After a thorough review of the brief, supporting documents and applicable

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

Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico and DHS first encountered her on

July 31, 2010, when she attempted to gain entry to the United States at the Calexico

port of entry by presenting a false document. (Dkt. No. 3-1, Resp’t Exs. at 1-2.) At

- 1 - [15cv0089-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00089-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 07/13/15 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

that time, she stated under oath that she was single and had no children, that she had

been living in San Jose, California for five years, and that she had no fear of returning

to her home in Mexico. (Id. at 2, 4-5, 7.) She was ordered removed in expedited

removal proceedings, and she acknowledged thatshe could not immigrate to the United

States for five years without obtaining permission from DHS or the Attorney General.

(Id. at 6.)

About three weeks later, on August 24, 2010, Petitioner attempted to gain entry

to the United States at the Otay Mesa port of entry by presenting a false document as

a passenger in a vehicle. (Id. at 8-10.) At that time, she stated under oath that she had

children, that she had lived in the United States for about eight years, and that she had

no fear of returning to Mexico. (Id. at 12-14.) She was once again ordered removed

in expedited removal proceedings, this time with a twenty-year bar to returning to the

United States. (Id. at 10.) 

About four years later, on July 22, 2014, Petitioner and her husband , and two 1

U.S. born children arrived at the San Ysidro port of entry. (Id. at 15.) Petitioner and

2

her husband applied for admission at the San Ysidro port of entry, seeking an

opportunity to apply for asylum. (Id. at 15, 17.) U.S. Customs and Border Protection

referred both of them to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for

“credible fear” interviews before an asylum officer. (Id. at 30.) An asylum officer

determined that they had a credible fear of persecution or torture and should be allowed

to present their asylum applications before an IJ in removal proceedings. (Id.) Both

were placed in removal proceedings. (Id. at 31-34.) On September 16, 2014, ICE 

released Petitioner from custody pending her removal proceedings, upon her posting

a $1500 bond. (Id. at 35-37.) Her husband remains in custody. Her next hearing

Her husband, Echeverria Lopez Luciano, has a related petition for writ of 1

habeas corpus filed in case no. 15cv90. His petition is nearly identical to Petitioner’s

petition.

On another form, the report stated that Petitioner presented at the San Ysidro

2

port of entry and was traveling alone. (Dkt. No. 3-1, Resp’t Ex. at 17.) 

- 2 - [15cv0089-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00089-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 07/13/15 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

before the IJ was scheduled to take place on June 3, 2015. (Id. at 39-40.) 

In her petition, Petitioner seeks a stay of her removal proceedings and seeks the

Court to grant her claim for “Statutory Eligibility for Deferred Action, Pursuant to

Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality act.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 22.) She

also alleges consideration of her application for “Deferred Action USCIS Form I821D.” (Id. at 2.) Besides her unverified allegation, she does not attach a copy of an

application for deferred action. She also alleges facts and arguments to support her

asylum claim and her eligibility for deferred action. 

While not referenced or alleged in the petition, Respondent argues Petitioner is

seeking Deferred Status for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents

(“DAPA”) . On November 20, 2014, DHS announced its DAPA Deferred Action was 3

to be implemented in mid-to-late May 2015. (Dkt. No. 3-1, Resp’t Ex. at 41-46.) On

February 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas enjoined

implementation of DAPA. Texas v. United States, –F. Supp.3d –, 2015 WL 648579

(S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015). On May 26, 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied the government’s

motion to stay the preliminary injunction. Texas v. United States, –F.3d–, 2015 WL

3386436 (5th Cir. May 26, 2015). 

A. No Case and Controversy

Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to state a case and controversy

because DAPA has not yet been implemented and it does not appear that Petitioner

applied for DAPA relief or other deferred action. Respondent also argues that there is

no adverse action for the Court to consider and Petitioner has failed to pursue and

exhaust her administrative remedies. 

Judicial review is permitted only upon review of final orders. 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(9) (“Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation

and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising fromany action taken

DAPA refers to the DHS’s recent policy to exercise prosecutorial discretion

3

with respect to parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents living in the

United States continuously since January 1, 2010. (Dkt. No. 3-1, Resp’t Ex. at 41-46.) 

- 3 - [15cv0089-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00089-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 07/13/15 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

or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this chapter

shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.”). Since

there does not yet appear to be a final order, judicial review is not permitted. See

Galindo–Romero v. Holder, 640 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, habeas

relief for final orders of removal lies only with the court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(5); Mamigonian v Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, based on

the record before the Court, Petitioner isstill in removal proceedings and the IJ has not

yet ruled. 

In addition, “[a]n applicant’s failure to properly raise an issue to the BIA

generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving us of jurisdiction to consider

the issue.” Cervantes v. Holder, 772 F.3d 583, 590 (9th Cir. 2014). Since the case is

still in removal proceedings before the IJ, the issue has not yet been raised with the

BIA. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to exhaust. 

Moreover, while it is not clear which deferred action Petitioner is referencing,

it does not appear that she has a pending application. The Court concludes that the

petition contains no case or controversy, and is not ripe for review. 

B. Jurisdiction

Petitioner seeks a stay of her removal proceedings and appears to seek a ruling

that the Court grant her deferred action. Respondent argues that the Court does not

have jurisdiction to stay removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). 

Section 1252(g) providesthat a court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims by an alien

arising from decisions or actions by the Attorney General to commence proceedings,

adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders except as provided in that section. Reno

v. Am.-Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 477 (1999).

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) provides that,

(g) Exclusive jurisdiction

Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other

provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of

Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and

1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or

claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action

- 4 - [15cv0089-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00089-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 07/13/15 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

by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases,

or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). This provision was enacted to provide some measure of protection

to “no deferred” action decisions and similar discretionary determinations to abandon

prosecution at any stage in the deportation process. Reno, 525 U.S. at 483. Similarly,

the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether Petitioner is eligible for any Deferred

Action under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Fabian–Lopez v. Holder, 540 Fed. App’x 760, 761

n. 2 (9th Cir. 2013) (“We lack jurisdiction to consider whether [petitioner] is eligible

for consideration for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”); see also Gama v.

Baran, No. 13-2162 WBX KJN, 2014 WL 1616443, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2014)

(parties agree that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider DACA eligibility). In

addition, the Court has no jurisdiction to review denials of a deferred action status

petition. Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Therefore, the Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction to stay her removal

proceedings and make a determination on her deferred action eligibility.4

Conclusion

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 13, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Respondent also argues that the petition should be dismissed with leave to 4

amend because Petitioner failed to name the proper Respondent by failing to name his

immediate custodian. Since the Court denies the petition, the Court need not address

this issue. 

- 5 - [15cv0089-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-00089-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 07/13/15 Page 5 of 5