NAVARRETE-RACHED v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, ORDERED that Pltf's application is denied for lack of jurisdiction; ORDERED that no transfer of Pltf's application is warranted in light of the application being facially unripe, etc. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/7/2014. (dmr)(n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________
:
GUSTAVO NAVARRETE-RACHED,
:
: Civil Action No. 13-7678 (RMB)
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
_______________________________________
:
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s
submission of a document titled “Application for Suspension of
Deportation.”

See Docket Entry No. 1.

Plaintiff is a native and

citizen on Mexico and a United States permanent resident; he is
currently serving his federal prison term imposed by the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
id. at 2-3.

See

Since Plaintiff’s penal term is expiring on January

14, 2014, and his conviction might give rise to removal
proceedings, see id. at 4, Plaintiff commenced the instant matter
in the hope of preventing such removal proceedings and/or to
invalidate his potentially upcoming order removal.

See id.

This Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear
challenges to any removal order, even if it was actually entered
and became final.

Section 1252(g), as amended by the REAL ID

Act. Pub L. No. 10943, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), explicitly bars
judicial review of three classes of actions and decisions
committed to the Government's discretion: “the ‘decision or

action to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute
removal orders.’”

Chehazeh v. Att’y Gen., 666 F.3d 118, 134 (3d

Cir. 2012) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999)).

Therefore, if Plaintiff’s

removal proceedings are commenced and result in an order of
removal, and Plaintiff duly exhausts his administrative remedies
before the Board of Immigration Appeals but remains unsatisfied
with the outcome, he shall file a timely petition for review with
the federal court of appeals having jurisdiction over the
immigration judge who would enter his removal order.

See REAL ID

Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“[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
Act”).
Since, at this juncture, Plaintiff’s order of removal is
purely hypothetical, this Court cannot construe his application
at bar as a petition for review and, therefore, cannot direct a
transfer of his application to an appropriate court of appeals.1
IT IS on this 7th day of January 2014,

1

This Court has no certainty that Plaintiff’s removal
proceedings would take place in the Western District of Missouri
and, thus, be proper if his petition is filed with the Eighth
Circuit. Moreover, until Plaintiff’s order of removal finalizes,
no court of appeals would have jurisdiction to address
Plaintiff’s petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
2

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application is denied for lack of
jurisdiction; and it is further
ORDERED

that

no

transfer

of

Plaintiff’s

application

is

warranted in light of the application being facially unripe; and it
is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion and
Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

3