Mendoza-Contreras v. United States of America
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. CV 13-1314-PHX-DGC (DKD)
United States of America,
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
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.
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
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(a).
Those procedures in turn assign
subject to a final order of removal.
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
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?