Perales v. Napolitano et al

Filing 20

ORDER : Parties' joint status report is due 12/17/10. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2010)

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

OO IT IS S 1 J OSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, CSBN 44332 U n i t ed S t at es At t o r n ey ston usan Ill Judge S 2 J O A N N M . S W A N S O N , C S BN 8 8 1 4 3 Chief, Civil Division ER C N F D IS T IC T O 3 EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150 R A s s i s t an t U n i t e d S t at e s A t t o rn ey 4 The parties must file a joint status report by December 1 3 0 1 C l a y S t r ee t , S u i t e 3 4 0 S 17, 2010. 5 Oakland, California 94612 T e l e p h o n e : ( 5 1 0 ) 6 3 7 -3 6 9 7 6 FA X : ( 5 1 0 ) 6 3 7 -3 7 2 4

RDERE

D

7 Attorneys for Respondents 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) No. C 09-6028 SI ) ) ) J O I N T S T A T U S R E PO R T ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

11 AMALIA HERNANDEZ PERALES, 12 13 v. Petitioner,

14 J ANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; 15 TIMOTHY AIKEN, Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 16 and ERIC HOLDER, J R., Attorney General o f t h e Un i t ed St at es , 17 R es p o n d en t s . 18 19

P e t i t i o n e r , b y an d t h r o u gh h e r a t t o r n e y o f r e c o r d , a n d R es p o n d e n t s , b y a n d t h r o u gh t h e i r

20 attorneys of record, hereby submit this joint status report. 21 ( 1 ) T h e p e t i t i o n er fi l e d a i m m i gr a t i o n h a b e a s p e t i t i o n o n D e c e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , a l l e gi n g t h a t s h e

22 received ineffective assistance of counsel from two of her former attorneys following the issuance 23 of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 24 ( 2 ) A n i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h i s C o u r t ca n a n d s h o u l d re q u i r e t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o

25 ex haust her administrative remedies, if any, by presenting her ineffective assistance of counsel 26 claims to the BIA via the filing an administrative motion to reopen. 27 (3) In Rajinder Singh v. Napolitano, Appeal No. 07-16988, the parties ex pect the United

28 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to resolve the issue of whether a district court may JOINT STATUS REPORT C09-6028 SI

A

LI

FO

R NIA

RT U O

NO

RT

H

1 properly require exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any, in cases where, as here, the alleged 2 i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e en t r y o f t h e a l i e n ' s f i n al r e m o v a l o r d e r a n d 3 where, as here, the petitioner seeks only re-issuance of the BIA's order or orders under Amarjeet 4 S i n g h v. G o n z a l es , 4 9 9 F. 3 d 9 6 9 ( 9t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) . 5 ( 4 ) T h e N i n t h C i r c u i t h e l d o ra l a r gu m e n t i n R a j i n d er S i n g h o n J an u ar y 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , b u t h a s n o t

6 yet issued an opinion. 7 8 9 10 ( 5 ) O n A u gu s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t i s s u e d t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r : The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for the limited purpose o f r u l i n g u p o n w h e t h e r t h e B o a r d h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r S i n gh ' s i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel claims and what effect, if any, the Attorney General's recent o p i n i o n i n I n r e C o m p e a n , 2 5 I & N D e c . 1 , 3 ( A . G . 2 0 0 9 ) , h a s o n t h i s c as e . T h e Bo ar d s h a l l a d v i s e t h e c o u r t o f a n y a c t i o n o r d e c i s i o n .

11 Rajinder Singh v. Napolitano, 577 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2009) (Order). 12 (6) When the case was remanded to the BIA, the BIA asked the parties to file briefs on the

13 issues that had been remanded to it by the Ninth Circuit and the parties submitted briefs as 14 directed by the BIA. 15 (7) On April 30, 2010, the BIA issued a decision in Matter of Rajinder Singh, Case No.

16 A071789054, which responded to the questions that were posed to it by the Ninth Circuit. A copy 17 of the BIA's decision is attached to this joint status report. 18 (8) The BIA and the parties have provided the Ninth Circuit with a copy of the BIA's decision

19 for its consideration. 20 (9) Rajinder Singh filed a motion with the BIA on J une 1, 2010, asking for reconsideration of

21 its April 30, 2010 decision. The petitioner has provided a copy of her motion for reconsideration 22 to the Ninth Circuit. 23 ( 1 0 ) T h e p ar t i e s c o n t i n u e t o b e l i e v e i t w o u l d b e p r u d en t t o a w a i t t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t ' s d e c i s i o n

24 in Rajinder Singh before filing any further briefing in the above-entitled matter and, accordingly, 25 ask this Court to hold this case in abeyance for an additional six months. In the event the Ninth 26 Circuit issues a decision in the interim, the parties will promptly notify the Court. 27 // 28 // JOINT STATUS REPORT C09-6028 SI 2

1 Date: J une 17 , 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 Date: J une 17, 2010 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STATUS REPORT C09-6028 SI 3

Respectfully submitted, J OSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United S tates Attorney / s/ E D W A R D A . O LS E N A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o rn e y Attorneys for Respondents /s/ J A M E S T O D D BE N N E T T Attorney for P etitioner