Thi s di s po s i t i on i s no t app r op r i a t e f or pu bl i c a t i on a nd i s no t pr e c e de nt e xc eptas * pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he H on orabl e E dw ar d R
. K orm an, S eni or D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** C our tf orE a s t e rn N e w Y or k, B r ookl y n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON * UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
R AMON S AN T I AG O L E I VA , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. A . N E I L C L A R K , e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35619 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 -cv -0 0 1 6 9 -M JP

ME MOR AN DU M

A p p e a l f r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on M a r s ha J . P e c hm a n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J ul y 13, 2011 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: C L IF T O N and N . R . S M IT H , C i rc ui t Judg es , and K O R M A N , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** R am on S ant i ago L ei va, a n at i ve and ci t i ze n of H on du ra s, appeal s f rom an order of the di s tr i c tc our tdi sm i ssi n g h i s pe t i t i on f ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus , by w hi c h he 

# FI LED AU G 11 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

s oughtC a nc e l l a t i on of

R e m ova l ( “ C a nc e l l a t i on”) u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1229b( b)
. T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound L e i va t o be i ne l i gi bl e f orC a nc e l l a t i o n , b e c a us e he di d not
m ai n t ai n a co n t i n u o u s p h ysi cal p resen ce i n th e U n i t ed S t at es f o r a p eri o d o f atl east 1 0 y e a r s . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b)( 1)(A ) (“ T he A tt orney G ener al m ay ca ncel re m ov al of . . . a n a l i e n w ho i s . . . de por t abl e . . . i f the a l i e n ha s be e n phy s i c a l l y pr e s e nti n the U n ite d S ta te s f

o ra c o n tin u o u s p e r io d o f n o t le s s th a n 1 0 y e a r s . . . ” ) . R e s p o n d e n ts co n ten d th at th e d istrict co u rt lack ed ju risd icti o n to r ea ch th e m er it s o f L eiv a’s p e titio n , b e c a u s e h is c la im in te r f e r e s w ith th e e x e c u tio n o f h is r e m o v a l o r d e r . W e r e v i e w de no vo w hether a di stri ct court had subj ec t -m att er j uri sdi ct i on ov era habeas p e titio n . See Moral es -I

zqui erdo v. D ept . of

H om elan d S ec . , 6 0 0 F .3 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 8 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 )
. U nd er the R E A L ID A ct of 20 05 (the “ R E A L ID A ct ”) , C on gress e l i m i nat ed ha be a s r e vi e w of

“ a l l que s t i ons of

l a w a nd f

a c t. . . ar i s i ng f

r om a ny a c t i on t a ke n or p r o c e e d in g b r o u g h t to r e m o v e a n a lie n f r o m th e U n ite d S ta t e s . ” 8 U .S .C . § 12 52 (b)( 9). A cc ordi ng l y, di stri ctand app el l at e co urt s l ac k j uri sdi ct i on ov erhabeas pet i t i on s that se ek j ud i ci al re vi ew of “ any ‘ qu es t i on [] of l aw [or] fa ct ’ ar i si ng fr om an order of re m ov al
. ” Mor al e s - I z qui e r do , 6 0 0 F .3 d a t1 0 8 2 ; see a l so 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( “th e s o le a n d e x c lu s iv e m e a n s f o rju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f

a n o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l” i s t o pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w w i th a n appr opr i a t e c our tof appe a l s ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1252( g) ( “ no3

c our ts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o he a ra ny . . . c l a i m by
. . . an y a l i e n a r i s i ng f r om the deci si on or ac t i on . . . [t o] exec ut e [a ] re m ov al order[ ] . . . ”)
. A cl ai m di re ct l y a ri se s fro m an or de rof

r e m ova l w he n the a l i e n c a nnota s s e r tthe c l a i m w i thout
s im u lta n e o u s l y c h a lle n g in g h is o rh e rr e m o v a l o r d e r . Mor al e s - I z qui e r do , 600 F . 3d
a t1082–83. I n th e in s ta n t c a s e , L e iv a c la im s th a t h e w a s d e p r iv e d o f th e o p p o r tu n i t y to
ap p l y f o r C a n c e lla tio n in v io la tio n o f d u e p r o c e s s . W e f

in d th a t h is p e titio n is

“ approp ri at el y c hara ct er i ze d as achal l enge t o an ‘ order of re m ov al , ’ ” id
. a t1082, because the re l i ef

soug htby L ei va coul d n ot be grant ed w i tho utca ncel l i ng hi s r em ov al
o r d e r . C o n s e q u e n t l y , we h o l d th a t th e j u r i s d i c t i o n - s tr i p p i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f th e R E AL I D A ctap p l y t o L ei v a’ s p et i t i o n an d , as a resu l t , th e d i stri ctco u rtl ack ed su bje c tm a tte rju r is d ic tio n . T h e p et i t i o n i s D I SM I SSED .