Arellano v. Napolitano, No. 4:2013cv00906 - Document 7 (S.D. Tex. 2013)

Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
Arellano v. Napolitano Doc. 7 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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-