Mendoza-Contreras v. United States of America

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk must enter judgment accordingly. ORDERED denying as moot Petitioner's 3 Motion for Political Asylum and 4 Request to accept the low end of plea agreement and to issue a subpoena to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/18/2013.(LFIG)

JKM

1
2

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lazaro Mendoza-Contreras,

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

Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

United States of America,

ORDER

Respondent.

13
14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

grant asylum.

19

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

20

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

21

established by them.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(a).

Those procedures in turn assign

1

subject to a final order of removal.

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

If the order of removal was entered by an

asylum, this action must be dismissed.
IT IS ORDERED dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk must
enter judgment accordingly.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Dated this 18th day of November, 2013.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2JDDL