Raymundo Montenegro v. U. S. Department of Justice, No. 14-10141 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10141 Document: 00512987682 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10141 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED RAYMUNDO SAUCEDO MONTENEGRO, Petitioner-Appellant March 31, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES; BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; E. HOLDER, United States Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13-CV-238 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Raymundo Saucedo Montenegro, federal prisoner # 28133-112, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his self-styled 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for want of jurisdiction. He contends that the government violated its own regulations, his right to due process, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), and the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 14-10141 Document: 00512987682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 No. 14-10141 Immigration and Nationality Act by failing to process his application for naturalization within a reasonable time. He seeks a hearing or, alternatively, an equitable order requiring the government to process his application and grant citizenship nunc pro tunc. According to Saucedo Montenegro, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the APA vested the district court with jurisdiction to consider his claims. Saucedo Montenegro does not dispute the district court’s determination that his claims are not cognizable under Section 2241. To the extent he asserts that his petition should be construed instead under the APA and Section 1331, he also fails to address the district court’s dispositive rulings that his claims are time barred by a jurisdictional statute of limitations and that he lacks standing to challenge the denial of his application as an aggravated felon. He thus has abandoned any challenge to these determinations by the district court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
