UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

GONZALO VALDOVINOS-BLANCO, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ICE, 

EL PASO, 

 Respondents-Appellees. 

No. 13-2102 

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00384-JAP-LAM) 

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before LUCERO, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. 

 

 While detained by the United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) and awaiting a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, 

Petitioner-Appellant Gonzalo Valdovinos-Blanco filed a self-styled “Emergency 

 

* After examining Petitioner-Appellant’s brief and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 4, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

Motion for Withholding of Removal/Deportation” in federal district court in 

New Mexico. He asked the court to assume jurisdiction and order ICE to withhold 

his removal until a civil rights lawsuit he had filed in the Eastern District of 

California is resolved. The district court determined that it did not have 

subject-matter jurisdiction to grant or deny the requested relief. Accordingly, it 

denied the emergency motion and dismissed the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3).1

 

 Mr. Valdovinos-Blanco appeals.2

 He argues that the district court failed to 

liberally construe or allow him to amend his “mislabeled” emergency motion as one 

seeking a stay of removal—a request over which he claims “the district court does

have jurisdiction.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 3, 4 (emphasis added). 

 We review the district court’s Rule 12(h)(3) dismissal de novo, mindful that 

“the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited” and “there is a presumption against our 

jurisdiction.” Marcus v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue, 170 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 

1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 

1

 That rule instructs: “If the court determines at any time that it lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3). See also Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316 (2006) (observing 

that “subject-matter jurisdiction must be considered by the court on its own motion, 

even if no party raises an objection”). 

2

 We liberally construe Mr. Valdovinos-Blanco’s pro se appellate brief. 

See Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998). 
- 3 - 

 Here, Mr. Valdovinos-Blanco, the party invoking federal jurisdiction, has 

failed in his duty to establish that federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See id. 

In a related vein, he does not support his conclusory appellate arguments with any 

pertinent legal authority. Cf. United States ex rel. Boothe v. Sun Healthcare Grp., 

Inc., 496 F.3d 1169, 1175 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining that this court’s rule, that it 

will not entertain perfunctory arguments, “applies with special force to arguments 

seeking to establish our subject matter jurisdiction”). Moreover, we are “unaware of 

any statutory or common-law authority permitting [a federal court] to intervene in an 

alien’s [ongoing] deportation proceedings to order withholding of removal,” R., Vol. 

1 at 6, or to otherwise stay an alien’s removal while his appeal is still pending before 

the BIA until a separate lawsuit he filed is resolved. 

 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Mr. Valdovinos-Blanco’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 

937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). 

 Entered for the Court 

 Wade Brorby 

 Senior Circuit Judge