Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01440/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01440-0/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ARMANDO VALLE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-1440 REC WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

APPLICATION FOR

REMOVAL

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with what he terms an “Application for

Withholding of Removal.” In his application, Petitioner seeks the withholding of his

removal from this country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(b)(3). This statute provides in

part that “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General

decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the

alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.”

Case 1:05-cv-01440-REC-WMW Document 4 Filed 01/05/06 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 2

Title 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(5)(A)-(C), petitioner may file a motion to reconsider a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or an immigration judge (IJ) regarding

his removal by specifying the errors of law or fact within thirty (30) days of the decision. 8

U.S.C. § 1229(c)(5)(A)-(C); INA § 240(c)(5)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(b)(1)(governing motions to

reconsider before the BIA); 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(2)(governing motions to reconsider before the

IJ). 

Section 1229a(c)(6) further provides that an alien may move to reopen his case within

ninety (90) days of the order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(I); 8 C.F.R.

§ 3.23(b)(3). An alien may use a motion to reopen to challenge the finding of deportability

itself, or to show that an alien is newly eligible for relief. See, Socop-Gonzalez v. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Following the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, an alien may file a petition

for review in the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge

completed the proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). However, a final order can only be

reviewed if the alien has exhausted his administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 

In the present case, there is no indication that Petitioner has exhausted his available

administrative remedies to challenge his order of removal or even that such an order now

exists. Even if these prerequisites were met, this court is without the authority to review

claims challenging an order of removal. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this petition be dismissed

without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to properly challenge any order of removal at the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals after available administrative remedies have been exhausted.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

Case 1:05-cv-01440-REC-WMW Document 4 Filed 01/05/06 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 3

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01440-REC-WMW Document 4 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 3