Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02087/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondent
Victor A. Venegas-Alatorre
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR A. VENEGAS-ALATORRE,

Petitioner,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-2087 MHP

ORDER

On May 20, 2005, petitioner Victor A. Venegas-Alatorre filed in this court a petition for writ of

habeas corpus challenging a final order of deportation issued by United States Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”). Respondent Department of Homeland of Security now moves to dismiss Venegas’

petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Prior to May 11, 2005, this court had jurisdiction to entertain an alien’s challenge to an order of

removal under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, on that date, Congress enacted the REAL ID Act of 2005,

P.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, Division B (May 11, 2005). Section 106(a) of REAL ID Act, which took

effect upon its enactment, amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) so as to preclude this court

from reviewing final orders of removal issued by ICE. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). While respondent’s

motion to dismiss on that basis is unopposed, the court nonetheless notes that the question of whether

section 106(a) comports with the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, is a thorny one, and it

is complicated here by the fact that the REAL ID Act, by lifting the barriers to judicial review of Venegas’

claims in the court of appeals, has provided an alterative forum in which he may seek redress. See

Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, No. 03-74533, 2005 WL 1301593, at *1 (9th Cir. May 31, 2005) (holding

that section 106(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the REAL ID Act “restored judicial review of constitutional claims and

questions of law presented in petitions for review of final 
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

removal orders”). For the time being, however, the court need not address the REAL ID Act’s

constitutionality because the fact that the court of appeals now has jurisdiction to entertain Venegas’

constitutional claims provides a more prosaic ground for declining to entertain the instant habeas petition:

namely, Venegas’ failure to exhaust available judicial remedies, which the Ninth Circuit has held to be a

prudential limit on a district court’s jurisdiction to review final orders of deportation under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. See, e.g., Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 125 S.

Ct. 1395 (2005); Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 995, 999-1001 (9th Cir. 2004); Acevedo-Carranza v.

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 539, 541-42 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, the court need not reach the constitutional issues

raised by the enactment of the REAL ID Act to accept the parties’ position that it presently lacks

jurisdiction to entertain Venegas’ claims.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

Venegas’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a

petition for review in the court of appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 27, 2005 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California