Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tejada v. US Dep't of Homeland Security

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

December 10, 2019

ERICK VLADMIR TEJADA, Petitioner,
v.
US DEP'T OF HOMLAND SECURITY, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Frank D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Erick Vladmir Tejada's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241”), (Doc. No. 1) and Motion Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 3).

         I. BACKGROUND

         According to the habeas Petition, Petitioner was admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident on September 15, 1997. On March 26, 2010, he was convicted in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, of cocaine trafficking.

         On March 31, 2010, according to Petitioner, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) notified him that his lawful permanent resident status had been revoked. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1) at 2 ¶¶ 1-2 (citing “Removal Proceedings, ” § 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Petitioner also alleges a DHS investigation found that his cocaine trafficking conviction was an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), and that he therefore had violated INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

         Petitioner contends that his state trafficking conviction does not meet the definition of an aggravated felony as defined in § 1101(a)(43)(B) and that amendments to INA § 237 (a)(2)(A)(iii) do not apply to him because they were passed long after he was granted permanent resident status. He argues that, as such, he is not subject to deportation and seeks restoration of his permanent resident status or, in the alternative, asylum in the United States.

         Petitioner filed the instant § 2241 Petition on December 12, 2018. According to N.C. Department of Public Safety (“NCDPS”) records, Petitioner was released on parole on July 31, 2019.[1] Petitioner has not filed any update in this Court as to his custody, removal, or deportation status.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court is guided by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which directs district courts to dismiss habeas petitions when it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. Having conducted the required initial review, the Court finds it does not have jurisdiction to consider the Petition on the merits.

         III. DISCUSSION

         From the limited information Petitioner has provided, it appears removal proceedings were brought against him beginning in 2010. Petitioner has not stated whether a final order of removal was entered by an immigration judge, and he has not indicated whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) registered a detainer with NCDPS to take him into custody when he was released from prison. Regardless, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's claims.

         “Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . ., including section 2241 of Title 28, . . . a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision” of the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (2018). This provision “expressly eliminate[s] district courts' habeas jurisdiction over removal orders.” Fernandez v. Keisler, 502 F.3d 337, 346 (4th Cir. 2007).

         Additionally, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (2018) states that:

Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.