Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-02228/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-02228-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMSHID S. KASHANNEJAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-11-2228 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO STOP DEFENDANTS

FROM ISSUING AND LODGING THE

DETAINER AGAINST PLAINTIFF

(Docket No. 182)

Plaintiff has filed yet another brief, this time asking the Court to order Defendants not to

issue an immigration detainer against him. In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court to require

Defendants to prove that he is “amenable to deportation under any provisions of law relevant to [his]

[s]tatus as [a legal temporary resident].” Mot. at 5.

Both of Plaintiff’s requests for relief are denied. “A detainer serves to advise another law

enforcement agency that the Department [of Homeland Security] seeks custody of an alien presently

in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien.” 8 C.F.R. §

287.7(a). At this juncture, Defendants have not made any decision as to whether to initiate removal

proceedings against Plaintiff upon his (eventual) return to the United States. Thus, Plaintiff’s

requests for relief are premature. Moreover, as this Court has repeatedly held, under 8 U.S.C. § 

///

///

Case 3:11-cv-02228-EMC Document 183 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

1252(g), it “lacks jurisdiction over the government’s decision whether to commence removal

proceedings; and . . . , under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), a challenge to a removal decision must be made

to the Ninth Circuit, not this Court.” Docket No. 181 (Order at 1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02228-EMC Document 183 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2