Santana Santana v. Holder

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 12 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

MARIA DE LOURDES SANTANA SANTANA,

12

14
15

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS

Plaintiff,

13

No. C 12-0955 CW

v.
ERIC HOLDER, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of
the United States

16

Defendant.

17
18

________________________________/

19
Defendant Eric Holder has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff

20
21

Maria de Lourdes Santana Santana’s complaint.

Plaintiff opposes

22

the motion.

23

considered all of the papers and the entire record in this case,

24

the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The motion was decided on the papers.

Having

Docket No. 12.

25

BACKGROUND

26

Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Mexico who initially

27

entered the United States without inspection in 1992.

28

¶ 16.

Compl.

1

On September 1, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security

2

(DHS) initiated removal proceedings against Plaintiff in Seattle,

3

Washington by serving her with a Notice to Appear (NTA).

4

¶ 17.

5

national of the United States, she was instead a native and

6

national of Mexico and she had entered the United States without

7

inspection on June 1, 1992.

8

unlawfully present in the United States from April 1, 1997 until

9

January 1, 2004, when she departed for Mexico and that she

Id. at

In the NTA, DHS alleged that Plaintiff was not a native or

Id.

It also alleged that she was

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

attempted to reenter the United States on January 22, 2004, at

11

which time she made a false claim to United States citizenship and

12

presented a Washington State birth certificate that did not belong

13

to her.

14

Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, that she was

15

ordered removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

16

§ 235(b)(1) and that her departure was verified by United States

17

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on that day.

18

alleged that she had reentered the United States on or about

19

February 1, 2004 and had not obtained prior consent to reapply for

20

admission from the Attorney General.

21

that she filed an application for adjustment of status on February

22

4, 2007, which the United States Customs and Immigration Services

23

(USCIS) denied on September 9, 2008.

Id.

The NTA further alleged that she was served with a

Id.

Id.

DHS also

Finally, it alleged

Id.

24

The NTA charged Plaintiff with removability under INA

25

§§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (present without being admitted or paroled),

26

(a)(6)(C)(ii) (false claim to citizenship), (a)(9)(A)(ii) (seeking

27

admission within ten years of removal), (a)(9)(B)(i)(II) (seeking

28

admission within ten years of departure or removal after a prior

2

1

period of one year or more of unlawful presence), (a)(9)(C)(i)(I)

2

(entering without being admitted after a previous period of

3

unlawful presence of one year or more in the United States), and

4

(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) (entering without admission after a prior order

5

of removal).

6

Id. ¶ 18.

On December 1, 2009, Plaintiff appeared for a hearing at the
Immigration Court in Seattle, Washington, with her counsel

8

appearing telephonically from Fremont, California.

9

Plaintiff denied that she attempted to enter the United States on

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

January 22, 2004, that she presented someone else’s United States

11

birth certificate in an attempt to gain admission, that she was

12

removed to Mexico on the same day, and that she subsequently

13

entered without inspection on February 1, 2004, but admitted the

14

remaining allegations.

15

removability under INA §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and (a)(9)(B)(i)(II),

16

but denied removability under the other sections.

17

During the December 1, 2009 hearing, DHS submitted evidence

18

indicating that CBP had removed Plaintiff under expedited removal

19

proceedings pursuant to INA § 235(b)(1) on January 22, 2004.

20

at ¶ 23.

21

oral motion to terminate the removal proceedings in Immigration

22

Court, so that it could reinstate the prior expedited removal

23

order under INA § 241(b)(5).

24

motion because she was not given a reasonable opportunity to

25

examine the evidence or respond to the motion as she contends was

26

required by the regulations.

27

§ 239.2).

28

proceedings after concluding that the DHS had offered evidence

Id. at ¶ 21.

Id. at ¶ 21.

She also conceded

Id. at ¶ 22.

Id.

Based on the prior expedited removal order, DHS made an

Id. at ¶ 24.

Plaintiff opposed the

Id. at ¶ 25 (citing 8 C.F.R.

The immigration judge disagreed and terminated the

3

1

that Plaintiff was expeditiously removed in 2004.

2

Id. at ¶ 26;

Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A.
On December 23, 2009, Plaintiff timely appealed to the Board

3
4

of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

5

immigration judge had violated her procedural due process rights

6

and the regulations by denying her a reasonable opportunity to

7

respond to the motion.

8

prejudiced by this denial because she was deprived of the

9

opportunity to attack collaterally her expedited removal order.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Id.

Compl. ¶ 27.

She argued that the

She further contended that she was

Id.
On December 30, 2011, the BIA dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal.

12

Id. at ¶ 28; Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B.

13

Judge may properly terminate removal proceedings as improvidently

14

begun upon a determination that the alien is subject to

15

reinstatement.”

16

Plaintiff’s arguments on the grounds that “an alien subject to a

17

reinstatement of a prior order of removal is not entitled to a

18

hearing before an Immigration Judge.”

19

It held that “an Immigration

Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B, 1.

It rejected

Id. at 2.

On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff initiated the instant suit.

20

Docket No. 1.

In her complaint, she alleges that the immigration

21

judge’s termination of her removal proceedings without giving her

22

a reasonable opportunity to review the evidence and respond

23

violated the INA, regulations and her procedural due process

24

rights under the Fifth Amendment.

25

alleges that the termination was arbitrary and capricious under

26

the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

27

seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring remand of the

28

case to the BIA with instructions to remand to the Immigration

Compl. ¶¶ 29-34.

4

She also

Id. at ¶¶ 35-36.

She

1

Court for a new removal hearing, a stay of deportation until the

2

case is resolved and any other just and proper relief.

3

¶¶ 37-42.

4

Defendant to respond to the complaint.

5

Id. at

The parties twice stipulated to extend time for
Docket Nos. 10, 11.

On March 30, 2012, DHS issued a notice and decision to

6

reinstate the prior order of removal.

Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C.

7

that date, Plaintiff filed a petition for review “of the Board of

8

Immigration Appeals” in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and

9

asked that the court issue an emergency stay of removal.

Mot. to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dismiss, Ex. D.

11

contended that venue was proper in the Ninth Circuit “because the

12

Immigration Judge . . . completed the proceedings in Seattle,

13

Washington on December 1, 2009.”

14

See 9th Cir. Case No. 12-70997.

On

Plaintiff

Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D, 1-2.

On April 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued an order noting

15

that it may lack jurisdiction over the petition for review because

16

it was filed more than thirty days after the dismissal of the

17

BIA’s decision and because there was no final order of removal

18

currently in effect for the court to review.

19

12-70997, Docket No. 4.

20

her petition for review should not be dismissed for lack of

21

jurisdiction.

22

9th Cir. Case No.

It directed Plaintiff to show cause why

Id.

On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s

23

order to show cause.

Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. F.

24

Plaintiff explained that she did not previously file a petition

25

for review of the BIA’s decision in the Ninth Circuit because

26

there was no final order of removal until the order was actually

27

reinstated on March 30, 2012.

Id. at 8-9.

28

5

In her response,

Plaintiff argued that

1

the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to review DHS’s March 30, 2012

2

decision to remove her from the United States, that she timely

3

filed a petition for review of this decision and that DHS had

4

violated the regulations when reinstating that final order of

5

removal.

6

court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, it transfer the

7

action to the district court.

8
9

Id. at 11-12.

She alternatively asked that, if the

Id. at 12-14.

On August 17, 2012, Defendant filed the instant motion to
dismiss.

Docket No. 12.

In it, Defendant contends that Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

is raising the same arguments in this Court as in the Ninth

11

Circuit, that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

12

claims, which can only be raised in a petition for review of the

13

reinstatement order before the Ninth Circuit, and that, even if

14

the Court has jurisdiction, Plaintiff cannot show prejudice from

15

the immigration judge’s decision to terminate her proceedings.

16

Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

17

Docket No. 13.

18

Defendant has not filed a reply.

On September 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued an order in

19

the case before it, concluding that, because the petition for

20

review was timely as to the March 30, 2012 decision to reinstate

21

the prior order, “the jurisdictional issue does not appear

22

suitable for summary disposition.”

23

Docket No. 12, 1.

24

request to transfer.

25

granted Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of removal pending review

26

and set a briefing schedule.

27

motion for an extension of time to file her opening brief.

9th Cir. Case No. 12-70997,

It denied as moot Plaintiff’s alternative
Id. at 2.

At that time, the court also

The court later granted Plaintiff’s

28

6

Under

1

the current briefing schedule, Plaintiff’s opening brief was filed

2

January 28, 2013, the answering brief is due April 8, 2013 and the

3

optional reply fourteen days thereafter.

4

LEGAL STANDARD

5

Ninth Circuit Docket.

Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue which goes

6

to the power of the court to hear the case.

Federal subject

7

matter jurisdiction must exist at the time the action is

8

commenced.

9

Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988).

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of
A federal

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until the

11

contrary affirmatively appears.

12

Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).

Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated

13

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the

14

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

16

attack the sufficiency of the pleadings to establish federal

17

jurisdiction, or allege an actual lack of jurisdiction which

18

exists despite the formal sufficiency of the complaint.

19

Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th

20

Cir. 1979); Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.

21

1987).

22
23

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may either

Thornhill

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts that she is challenging the BIA’s decision

24

affirming the termination of her removal proceedings and not the

25

decision to reinstate the 2004 order of removal.

26

concedes that she can only appeal the decision to reinstate to the

27

Ninth Circuit and she has already filed a petition for review of

28

7

Plaintiff

1

that decision.

However, Defendant argues that this Court also

2

lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s challenge to the termination

3

of her removal proceedings.

4

Title 8 United States Code § 1252(a)(5) provides,

5

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or
nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or
any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and
1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with an
appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this
section shall be the sole and exclusive means for
judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued
under any provision of this chapter, except as provided
in subsection (e) of this section.

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In addition, this code section contains a “zipper clause” that

11

requires consolidation of all “questions of law and fact . . .

12

arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an

13

alien” into a petition for review before the appropriate court of

14

appeals.

15

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9).

These provisions do not prohibit district court review of

16

“claims independent of challenges to removal orders.”

Martinez v.

17

Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Singh v.

18

Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2007).

19

Circuit has held that “8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) prohibits

20

Administrative Procedure Act claims that indirectly challenge a

21

removal order” and that the “distinction between an independent

22

claim and indirect challenge will turn on the substance of the

23

relief that a plaintiff is seeking.”

24

omitted).

25

claims or indirectly challenges a final removal order requires “a

26

case-by-case inquiry turning on a practical analysis.”

27

Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211 (9th Cir. 2011).

However, the Ninth

Id. (internal quotations

The determination of whether a case raises independent

28

8

Singh v.

1

Applying this distinction, the Ninth Circuit has held that

2

the district court has jurisdiction to decide an individual’s

3

challenge to his “immigration detention in a habeas petition

4

without unduly implicating the order of removal” in a case in

5

which the individual was being detained pending the resolution of

6

a petition for review of a final order of removal.

7

Circuit has also held that an ineffective assistance of counsel

8

claim based on an attorney’s failure to file a timely petition for

9

review of a final removal order is an independent claim because

Id.

The Ninth

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the “only remedy would be the restarting of the thirty-day period

11

of the filing of a petition for review.”

12

F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir. 2007).

13

plaintiffs’ claims could be considered and the relief sought could

14

be granted without calling into question the merits of the

15

decision underlying the order of removal.

16

Holder, the plaintiff could be released pending the resolution of

17

his petition for review of the order of removal and, in Singh v.

18

Gonzales, the plaintiff could be permitted to file a petition for

19

review of the order of removal without upsetting the order of

20

removal.

21

Singh v. Gonzales, 499

In both of these cases, the

Moreover, in Singh v.

Here, Plaintiff challenges the BIA’s determination that the

22

immigration judge properly terminated her removal proceedings,

23

arguing that the termination was in violation of her right to due

24

process.

25

with instructions to remand to the Immigration Court for a new

26

removal hearing.

Plaintiff seeks an order remanding her case to the BIA,

However, the Department of Homeland Security has

27
28

9

1

already reinstated Plaintiff’s 2004 expedited removal order.

In

2

order to grant the relief Plaintiff seeks, this Court would have

3

to upset the reinstated removal order.

4

Moreover, Plaintiff seeks remand to the Immigration Court so

5

she can challenge the merits of the 2004 expedited removal order.

6

However, as Plaintiff herself points out, her ability to challenge

7

the merits of the 2004 removal order would require a finding that

8

there was a gross miscarriage of justice in the 2004 proceedings.

9

See Ramirez-Juarez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 633

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A]n alien cannot collaterally

11

attack an earlier exclusion or deportation at a subsequent

12

deportation hearing, in the absence of a gross miscarriage of

13

justice at the prior proceedings.”).

14

impugn the reinstatement of the expedited removal order.

15

Morales-Izquierdo v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1083

16

(9th Cir. 2010) (overruled in part on other grounds by Garfias-

17

Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 516 (9th Cir. 2012)) (finding

18

that a habeas petition challenging an adjustment-of-status

19

application was a challenge to an order of removal because the

20

petitioner could not “challenge only the denial of his adjustment-

21

of-status application without also impugning the Reinstatement

22

Order”) (emphasis in original).

Such a finding would clearly
See

23

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s challenge to the

24

termination of her removal proceedings in the Immigration Court is

25

“inextricably linked to the reinstatement of [her prior] removal

26

order” and is an impermissible challenge to that removal order.

27
28

10

1

Morales-Izquierdo, 600 F.3d at 1082.

2

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

3

Therefore, the Court lacks

Because the Court finds that it lacks subject matter

4

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, it need not reach

5

Defendant’s arguments that the case should be dismissed because

6

similar claims have been filed in the Ninth Circuit and Plaintiff

7

fails to state a due process claim because she cannot establish

8

prejudice.1
CONCLUSION

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

11

motion to dismiss.

Docket No. 12.

Plaintiff’s complaint against

12

Defendant is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk shall enter a

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even assuming the Court had jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
case, her complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
because she cannot show that she was prejudiced by the Immigration
Judge’s decision to terminate the removal proceedings. In her
opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff identifies two
forms of relief, which she asserts she would be “prima facie
eligible to seek” if the expedited removal order did not exist.
However, the expedited removal order did exist.
Plaintiff further argues that she would have sought an
evidentiary hearing on the allegations contained in the expedited
removal order, citing authority that provides that an individual
may collaterally attack an earlier order of removal at a
subsequent deportation hearing if he or she can demonstrate a
“gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceedings.” RamirezJuarez, 633 F.2d at 176. Plaintiff further asserts that if
afforded an evidentiary hearing on the allegations contained in
the expedited removal order, she “could have provided arguments to
challenge those allegations.” Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at
10. However, Plaintiff has not alleged anything in either her
complaint or any other papers to support a finding that there was
a gross miscarriage of justice during her 2004 expedited removal
sufficient to trigger an opportunity to challenge that order.

11

1

separate judgment.

2

Both parties shall bear their own costs of

suit.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 3/25/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12