Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00084/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
INS
Respondent
Karina Reyes Solis
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

 Plaintiff’s husband appeared at the hearing and was permitted

to speak.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARINA REYES SOLIS, No. CIV.S-05-00084 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

INS,

Defendant.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on May 13, 2005, at 11:00

a.m. for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. There was no

appearance on behalf of plaintiff.1 Assistant United States Attorney

Audrey Hemesath appeared specially on behalf of defendant.

As discussed on the record and in open court during the

status conference, plaintiff initiated this action on January 13,

2005, by filing a document styled as a “Petition for De Novo

Immigration Review.” Liberally construed, that document indicates

Case 2:05-cv-00084-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 05/23/05 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

2

that plaintiff is seeking judicial review of a denial of an

application for cancellation of removal by the Immigration Court in

San Francisco. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) provides that such a

petition “shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial

circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings.” 

See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 856 (9th Cir.

2004)(confirming the court of appeals jurisdiction to review a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying a motion to

reopen applications for cancellation of removal which was based on

ineffective assistance of counsel claim); Tinoco v. Ridge, 359 F.

Supp. 2d 1042, 1047 (S.D. Cal. 2005)(“Today, when an alien challenges

an order of removal, review generally begins in the federal courts of

appeal, through [Immigration and Nationality Act] § 242's direct

review.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

(20) days of the date this order is filed why this case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(3)(“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,

the court shall dismiss the action.”). Failure to timely file the

required writing will result in a recommendation of dismissal.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of

this order upon plaintiff Karina Reyes Solis at the following two

addresses:

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00084-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 05/23/05 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

3

5175 Euler Way

Sacramento, California 95823 

5827 Witt Court

Elk Grove, California 95757.

3. The Clerk also is directed to deliver a copy of this

order to the attention of Audrey Hemesath at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the Eastern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\solis0084.osc

Case 2:05-cv-00084-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 3