Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01369/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Hugo Rene Salvatierra-Cermeno
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

27

28

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hugo Rene Salvatierra-Cermeno, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1369-PHX-NVW (JRI)

REMAND ORDER

This action was originally filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit as a petition for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”). The Ninth Circuit treated the action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 and transferred it to this Court. Salvatierra-Cermeno v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d

1119 (9th Cir. 2005). The matter will now be remanded to the immigration judge for further

proceedings consistent with Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2004).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in 1991.

Petitioner filed an application for asylum in 1993. The application was referred to the

immigration court. The immigration judge found that Petitioner was deportable, but granted

his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) sustained the Government’s appeal, reversed the immigration judge’s order granting

asylum and withholding of removal and issued its own order for Petitioner’s removal to

Case 2:05-cv-01369-NVW--JRI Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Guatemala. Petitioner sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit. The court of appeals held that the “BIA had no authority to issue an order removing

Salvatierra-Cermeno to Guatemala.” Salvatierra-Cermeno, 404 F.3d at 1119. The court also

held, however, that “because 8 U.S.C. § 1252 gives [the courts of appeals] jurisdiction to

review only final orders of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider Salvatierra-Cermeno’s

petition for review.” Id. Rather than dismissing the appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit

treated the petition for review as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and transferred the

action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, citing Molina-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942.

Salvatierra-Cermeno, 404 F.3d at 1119.

DISCUSSION

Shortly after this case was transferred by the Ninth Circuit, the President signed into

law the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). As

amended by the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) now provides in relevant part:

(5) EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF REVIEW.--Notwithstanding any other

provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28,

United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361

and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of

appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means

for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any

provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e).

REAL ID Act §106(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). By this amendment, Congress has deprived

the district courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction to review “an order of removal” entered under

the Immigration and Nationality Act. This jurisdiction stripping provision is retroactive.

REAL ID Act § 106(b) (“subsection (a) shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this

division and shall apply to cases in which the final administrative order of removal,

deportation, or exclusion was issued before, on, or after the date of enactment”).

Additionally, REAL ID Act § 106(c) provides that if any § 2241 habeas corpus case

“challenging a final administrative order of removal . . . is pending in a district court on the

date of enactment, then the district court shall transfer the case . . . to the [appropriate] court

of appeals.” REAL ID Act §106(c). Thus, if Petitioner is seeking judicial review of “an

order of removal,” this Court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the action and the action

Case 2:05-cv-01369-NVW--JRI Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 4
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 -

must be transferred back to the Ninth Circuit. Here, however, the Court retains habeas

corpus jurisdiction because, as explained in Molina-Camacho, the order of removal entered

by the BIA is a “legal nullity.” Molina-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 941-42. 

In Molina-Camacho, an immigration judge found Molina removable, but granted his

application for cancellation of removal. The BIA reversed and entered an order removing

Molina to Mexico. On direct review, the Ninth Circuit held that “the BIA acted ultra vires

in issuing a deportation order instead of remanding to the [immigration judge].” MolinaCamacho, 393 F.3d at 941. The court of appeals further held that the “BIA’s act of issuing

the order of removal render[ed] that portion of the proceedings a ‘legal nullity.’” Id. (quoting

Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir. 2003). In the absence of a proper

removal order, the Ninth Circuit found itself without jurisdiction to entertain the petition for

review because direct review in the courts of appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 is limited to the

review of a “final order of removal.” Molina-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942. Rather than

dismissing the appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit treated the petition for review as a petition

for writ of habeas corpus and transferred the action to the district court under 28 U.S.C. §

1631. Id. The Ninth Circuit instructed the district court to remand the matter to the

immigration judge for further proceedings and noted that if the immigration judge issues an

order of removal, Molina would then be permitted to raise the merits of his claims on direct

review to the court of appeals. Id. at 942 n.4.

Here, as in Molina-Camacho, the BIA’s ultra vires removal order is a legal nullity.

This Court therefore retains jurisdiction over this habeas corpus action because the

jurisdiction striping provisions of the REAL ID Act only limit the district courts’ jurisdiction

to review “orders of removal” and there is no such order in this case. Accordingly, this

matter will be remanded to the immigration judge for further proceedings consistent with

Molina-Camacho. If upon remand the immigration judge enters a final order of removal, the

Ninth Circuit will then have jurisdiction to consider a direct petition for review. See MolinaCamacho, 393 F.3d at 942 n.4. 

Case 2:05-cv-01369-NVW--JRI Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this matter is remanded to the immigration judge

for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and Molina-Camacho, 393

F.3d at 942. This Order terminates the action in this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in addition to serving counsel of record for

Petitioner and Respondent, the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Remand Order upon

the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the civil

process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney.

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01369-NVW--JRI Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 4