Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01954/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01954-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

19cv1954 CAB (JLB)

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

TAURINI VIZUET RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv1954 CAB (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While somewhat unclear, it appears that Petitioner is challenging 

his removal order on the basis that his prior criminal conviction does not qualify as an 

aggravated felony. [Doc. No. 1 at 2.]1 This Court, however, does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction to review a final removal order.

Pursuant to the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109–13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005), 

judicial review of all deportation, exclusion, or removal orders lies exclusively in the 

appropriate court of appeals; the district courts no longer have jurisdiction to review such 

orders. Therefore, the exclusive means of asserting a challenge to a final order of removal 

 

1

It also appears that Petitioner is not currently in custody. See Doc. No. 1 at 40, showing Plaintiff’s 

address as a private residence.

Case 3:19-cv-01954-CAB-JLB Document 7 Filed 10/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1954 CAB (JLB)

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

and matters related thereto, is to file a petition for review in the appropriate court of 

appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of 

appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial 

review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this chapter”); 

Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir.2008) 

(“RIDA amended § 1252(b)(9) of the INA to vest the circuit courts with exclusive habeas 

jurisdiction over petitions challenging final orders of removal.”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(g) (“Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any 

alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence 

proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this 

chapter.”); Lopez v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2010 WL 4279314, *2 (C.D.Cal.2010) 

(holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a request to halt the execution of 

an order of removal).

Therefore, the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being refiled 

in the appropriate court of appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01954-CAB-JLB Document 7 Filed 10/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2