Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04790/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04790-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nancy Alcantar
Respondent
Michael Chertoff
Respondent
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Ignacio Mora Jimenez
Petitioner
Maria Angelica Berber Macias
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IGNACIO MORA JIMENEZ and MARIA

ANGELICA BERBER MACIAS,

Petitioners,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of

Homeland Security, NANCY ALCANTAR, Field

Office Director, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, and ALBERTO GONZALES,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondents. ______________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4790 SBA 

ORDER

[Docket No. 12]

This is a habeas case filed by Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, to attack a final

removal order issued by an Immigration Judge and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

The Court dismissed the case because it lacked jurisdiction to hear Petitioners' challenge to their

final removal orders under the Real ID Act of 2005, which eliminated habeas corpus review of

removal decisions in the district courts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Petitioners have now filed a

notice of appeal, which this Court construes as an application for a certificate of appealability

(hereinafter "COA"). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(3). 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first

obtaining a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A court

shall grant a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate which issues

satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3). 

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing

required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). In this case, however, the dismissal was on a

question antecedent to the merits. 

Case 4:06-cv-04790-SBA Document 13 Filed 08/15/06 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

Although section 2253(c) also applies to non-merits decisions such as the ruling in this case,

the application to such dismissals is somewhat more complex. See Slack, 120 S.Ct. at 1603. 

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds

has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the

district court’s procedural holding.” Id. “When the district court denies a habeas petition on

procedural grounds without reaching the [petitioner's] underlying constitutional claim, a COA

should issue when the [petitioner] shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.

As each of these components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose

of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer

is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. Supreme Court jurisprudence “allows and

encourages” federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue, as was done here. See id.

The petition was dismissed because Petitioners challenged the final removal orders, a

challenge that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear under the Real ID Act. Therefore,

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s Order debatable or wrong. The request for a COA will

be denied. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioners' request for a COA [Docket No.

12]. The Clerk of the Court shall forward to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the case file with

this Order. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/14/06 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04790-SBA Document 13 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2