Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02986/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02986-0/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

1

 The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the Department of Justice

and its functions were transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security on

March 1, 2003. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov.

25, 2002). 

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Javier Arizola Alonzo, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Phillip Crawford, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2986-PHX-MHM (BPV)

ORDER

Petitioner Javier Arizola Alonzo (A90-210-641), who is confined in the Eloy

Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The filing fee has been paid. The Court will dismiss the

Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background

In 1982, Petitioner’s parents filed an N-600 application for a certificate of citizenship.

In 2002, Petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada

on a charge of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On February 28, 2003, the

Government’s oral motion to dismiss the indictment was granted and Petitioner was

remanded to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).1

 On April 11, 2003, an

Case 2:06-cv-02986-MHM--BPV Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 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

- 2 -

immigration judge found that Petitioner had made a prima facie case of United States

Citizenship and granted Petitioner’s request for release from custody. 

Sometime in 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) again took Petitioner

into custody and alleged that he was removable because his 1982 N-600 application had been

denied. On September 22, 2006, Petitioner filed a second N-600 application for a certificate

of citizenship. In October of 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his first N-600

application. Petitioner is apparently still in removal proceedings before the immigration

judge. Petitioner’s sole claim for habeas corpus relief is that his detention and removal

proceedings are improper because he is a citizen of the United States.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court has held that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(5) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals to review an alien’s claim

to citizenship made in the context of removal proceedings. Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261,

1263-64 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim that his removal proceedings are

improper because he is a citizen of the United States is not cognizable as an original habeas

corpus action in this Court.

When a citizenship claim is improperly brought in the district court, the court must

consider whether the action should be transferred to the court of appeals pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1636. Baeta, 273 F.3d at 1264-65. Under § 1631, the Court must determine

whether: (1) the court of appeals would have had jurisdiction on the date the petition was

filed in this Court; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case; and (3) the transfer is in the

interest of justice. See Baeta, 273 F.3d at 1264. Transfer is not appropriate in this case

because the first requirement is not met. The Ninth Circuit would not have had jurisdiction

because the immigration judge has not yet issued an order of removal. Moreover, if the

immigration judge does issue an order of removal, Petitioner must timely appeal the

immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Only after Petitioner has

exhausted all available administrative remedies will the Ninth Circuit have jurisdiction to

review his citizenship claim. See Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 956 (9th Cir. 2002)

Case 2:06-cv-02986-MHM--BPV Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 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

- 3 -

(transfer of citizenship claim from district court to court of appeals is improper if the alien

has failed to exhaust administrative remedies). Accordingly, the Petition cannot be

transferred to the Ninth Circuit and it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition and this action are dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02986-MHM--BPV Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 3