Quiroz v. Immigration

Filing 14

ORDER: The Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant matter. The "Motion: for Habeas For A Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2241" is denied. (Dkt # 13 ). The case shall remain closed. The Clerk shall issue a second judgment. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/25/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Cristobal Ramos Quiroz,

11
12

v.
Immigration,

13

CASE NO. 17cv60-WQH-JMA
Petitioner,

ORDER

Respondent.

14 HAYES, Judge:
15

The matter before the Court is the “Motion for: Habeas For A Writ of Habeas

16 Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (ECF No. 13).
17

On January 6, 2017, Petitioner Cristobal Ramos Quiroz filed a Petition for Writ

18 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). On February 9, 2017,
19 the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the Petition should not be granted. (ECF
20 No. 6). On February 2, 2017, Petitioner submitted a document titled “Motion: for
21 Habeas For A Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” to the Court. (ECF No.
22 13). The Court inadvertently failed to docket the motion prior to issuing the Order on
23 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
24

In its return filed on February 23, 2017, the Government contended that this

25 Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because Petitioner seeks review of an order of
26 removal. Id. at 6. The return filed by the Government advised the Court of the Board
27 of Immigration Appeals Order filed on January 18, 2017. (ECF No. 8 at 4). Petitioner
28 did not file a traverse. On March 29, 2017, the Court denied the Petition for Writ of
-1-

17cv60-WQH-JMA

1 Habeas Corpus. The Order stated,
2
3
4

In this matter, Petitioner seeks review of an order of removal. The
Petitioner seeks “reinstatement of my lawful permanent resident status”
and contends that he was wrongfully deported in 1999. (ECF No. 1 at 1,
3). The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant
Petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

5 (ECF No. 10). On March 29, 2017, a Clerk’s Judgment was issued. (ECF No. 11).
6

In the instant motion, which has now been docketed on the record, Petitioner

7 provides additional material regarding the denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum
8 on August 25, 2016 and the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals on January
9 18, 2017 affirming that order.1 (ECF No. 13 at 18-32). Petitioner also references a
10 hearing before the Immigration Judge on January 23, 2017. Id. at 6. The motion seeks
11 the same relief as the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus — a review of an order of
12 removal. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant matter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)
13 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including
14 section 2241 of Title 28, ... a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of
15 appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for
16 judicial review of an order of removal.”); Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622
17 (9th Cir. 2012).
18

The “Motion: for Habeas For A Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”

19 filed by Petitioner is DENIED. (ECF No. 13). The case shall remain closed. The Clerk
20 shall issue a second judgment.
21 DATED: April 25, 2017
22

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Government had previously informed the Court of the January 18, 2017
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. (ECF No. 8 at 4).
-2-

17cv60-WQH-JMA