01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CELERINO CARRASCO,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, and

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE

CORPORATION,

Respondents.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0074-RSM

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

On January 12, 2006, petitioner Celerino Carrasco filed, pro se, a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity of his final order of removal

to Mexico and his detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Dkt.

#4). On February 17, 2006, respondents filed a Notice of Imminent Deportation and Motion to

Dismiss in Part. (Dkt. #10). Respondents argue that, to the extent petitioner challenges the

validity and enforcement of his removal order, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under

Case 2:06-cv-00074-RSM Document 23 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

Section 242(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), as

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

March 13, 2006, respondents filed a Superseding Motion to Dismiss for Mootness, notifying the

Court that petitioner was deported to Mexico on February 27-28, 2006. (Dkt. #21). Respondents

argue that because petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, his detention claims are now moot and

therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

II. DISCUSSION

Judicial review of a removal order is governed by INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, as

amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005. This statutory provision provides, in part, that the

exclusive means of asserting a challenge to a final order of removal and matters dependent

thereon, such as the one challenged herein, is to file a Petition for Review with the appropriate

court of appeals, which in this case is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(2);

(a)(5)(“[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 chapter”). This provision makes clear that this Court does not

have jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s challenge to his removal order. Accordingly, claims by

petitioner in which he challenges his final order of removal may not be considered in this habeas

corpus action. Further, to the extent petitioner challenges his detention and his conditions of

confinement, petitioner’s claims are now moot because petitioner was removed to Mexico on

February 27-28, 2006. (Dkt. #21, Ex. 3; Dkt. #20). Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 774-75

(9th Cir. 1991).

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00074-RSM Document 23 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -3

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that respondents’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #21)

be granted, and that this action be dismissed. A proposed Order accompanies this Report and

Recommendation.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00074-RSM Document 23 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 3