From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Aispuro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 9, 1997
127 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997)

Summary

holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h), redesignated as 8 U.S.C. § 1231 by Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, does "not create a private right of action that would allow a convicted alien . . . to compel the Attorney General to deport him"

Summary of this case from Rogers v. U.S.

Opinion

No. 96-50574

Submitted August 25, 1997

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

Decided September 9, 1997.

COUNSEL

Angel Meza Aispuro, Lompoc, California, pro se.

Mary E. Fulginiti, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding.

D.C. No. CR-91-00895-RSWL-04.

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit Judges.



OPINION


Angel Meza Aispuro appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for immediate deportation pursuant to section 438 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h)(2)(A) (1996), and the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) (1996). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review questions of law de novo, see United States v. Gutierrez, 116 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.

[1] The district court lacked jurisdiction to order Aispuro deported because the United States Attorney did not request Aispuro's deportation. See United States v. Flores-Uribe, 106 F.3d 1485, 1488 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(1), redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) in 1996, district court lacked jurisdiction to order deportation absent a request from the United States Attorney with concurrence of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization).

[2] Section 438 of the AEDPA amended 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h) to give the Attorney General discretion to deport an alien convicted of a nonviolent offense other than alien smuggling. Section 1252(h)(2)(A) does not create a private right of action that would allow a convicted alien such as Aispuro to compel the Attorney General to deport him. See Thye v. United States, 109 F.3d 127, 128-29 (2nd Cir. 1997) (per curiam); see also Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975) (establishing test to determine if private right of action exists).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Aispuro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 9, 1997
127 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997)

holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h), redesignated as 8 U.S.C. § 1231 by Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, does "not create a private right of action that would allow a convicted alien . . . to compel the Attorney General to deport him"

Summary of this case from Rogers v. U.S.
Case details for

U.S. v. Aispuro

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGEL MEZA AISPURO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 9, 1997

Citations

127 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997)

Citing Cases

Xayamonty v. United States

Foster v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 19-cv-05715, 2020 WL 3451993, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 23,…

U.S. v. Luna

Lastly, imprisoned aliens or those on supervised release have no private right to speedy removal. 8 U.S.C. §…