Romo-Jimenez v. Holder, No. 1:2013cv02081 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/5/2014 adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and directing service of order on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ANGEL ROMO-JIMENEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 Case No. 1:13-cv-2081-AWI-SAB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF Nos. 47, 52) 14 15 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF ORDER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Respondent. 16 17 18 Following a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision to deny derivative 19 citizenship through his mother, Petitioner filed a petition for review of the BIA decision with the 20 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 30, 2011. Romo-Jimenez v. 21 Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 11-73647 (9th Cir.) On August 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit filed a 22 memorandum and order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the 23 Northern District of California for an evidentiary hearing to determine Petitioner’s legal custody 24 during the time period at issue. Following transfer to the Eastern District by stipulation of the 25 parties, the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. 26 On June 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which 27 was served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 28 Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After receiving an extension of time, 1 1 Petitioner filed an Objection under seal on July 28, 2014. Respondent filed a Response to 2 Petitioner’s Objection on August 18, 2014. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 4 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 5 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As 6 explained more fully in the Findings and Recommendations, the only issue before the Court is 7 who had legal authority over Petitioner during the relevant time frame. The objections offer no 8 reason for the Court to disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that, under 9 California law, his probation officer and the California Youth Authority had legal custody of 10 Petitioner. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 18, 2014, is adopted in full; and 13 2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Court 14 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: November 5, 2014 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
