Arellano v. Napolitano

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

ARNULFO ARELLANO,
Register No. A-091881564,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Petitioner,
v.
JANET NAPOLITANO,
Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0906

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner, Arnulfo Arellano, filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus challenging the immigration court's denial of his
request for asylum and withholding of removal ("Petition")
Entry No.1)

(Docket

Pending before the court is Respondent's Motion to

Dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion to Dismiss")

(Docket Entry No.6).

("Respondent's

Although the motion was

filed on May 6, 2013, petitioner has not responded to it.
As set forth in more detail in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss
and

the

attached

exhibits,

removable under 8 U.S.C.

§

petitioner

1231 (a) (5).

was

determined

to

be

On December 11, 2013, the

immigration judge issued an order denying petitioner's request for
withholding of removal under INA 241(b) (3)

[8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) (3)]

and denying

of

his

request

Convention Against

for

Torture.

withholding
(Order of

the

removal

under

the

Immigration Judge,

Exhibit 8 to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No.6)
Petitioner appealed the Order of the Immigration Judge,

and the

appeal

is

presently

pending

before

the

Board

of

Immigration

Appeals.
The Real ID Act, enacted on May 11, 2005, eliminated district
court jurisdiction over removal orders and provided that a petition
for review to the court of appeals was the sole and exclusive means
8 U.S.C.

of judicial review.

§

1252 (a) (5) provides, in pertinent

part:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(statutory or non-statutory), 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.
Although petitioner does not state exactly what relief he seeks
from this

court,

respondent

not

it
to

appears
remove

that

petitioner

(Petition, Docket Entry No.1).
this

court does not have

he

seeks
from

an order directing
the

United

States

Therefore, under the Real ID Act

jurisdiction over the Petition.

Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508, 511-512

See

(5th Cir. 2006).

Because this court has no jurisdiction to review the decision
of the

immigration judge complained of,

Dismiss (Docket Entry No.6)

Respondent's Motion to

is GRANTED, and this action will be

dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 3rd day of July, 2013.

£#
-2-