Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01314/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01314-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lazaro Mendoza-Contreras
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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 

JKM 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Lazaro Mendoza-Contreras, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

No. CV 13-1314-PHX-DGC (DKD) 

ORDER 

Petitioner has filed an action asking the District Court to grant him asylum on the 

ground that returning him to Mexico will endanger his life because he testified against 

human smugglers. The action will be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction to 

grant asylum. 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security have exclusive authority to grant asylum in accordance with the procedures 

established by them. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(a). Those procedures in turn assign 

exclusive jurisdiction to grant asylum to asylum officers in the Office of Internal Affairs 

of Customs and Border Protection, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(a), unless the applicant is in 

removal proceedings, in which case exclusive jurisdiction to grant asylum is assigned to 

immigration judges in the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the Department of 

Justice, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(b). The federal courts have jurisdiction to review asylum 

determinations, if at all, only after the applications have been denied and the applicant is 

Case 2:13-cv-01314-DGC--DKD Document 5 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

JDDL 

subject to a final order of removal. If the order of removal was entered by an 

immigration judge, the courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review the order 

and the denial of asylum. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152(a)(5), (b)(4)(D). If the alien is subject to an 

expedited order of removal issued by an immigration officer under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), 

the district courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review the order, but that review is 

“limited to determinations of—(A) whether the petitioner is an alien, (B) whether the 

petitioner was ordered removed under [§ 1225(b)(1)], and (C) whether the petitioner can 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner . . . has been granted asylum 

under [§ 1158].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2). Because district courts lack jurisdiction to grant 

asylum, this action must be dismissed. 

IT IS ORDERED dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk must 

enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Petitioner’s Motion for Political 

Asylum (Doc. 3) and request to accept the low end of plea agreement and to issue a 

subpoena to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Doc. 4). 

Dated this 18th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01314-DGC--DKD Document 5 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 2