Perez v. Harrington ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    __________________
    No. 99-10176
    Summary Calendar
    __________________
    MARGARITA PEREZ,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM HARRINGTON, acting district
    director of the Dallas Office of the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    (3:98-CV-2309-D)
    _________________________________________________________________
    February 1, 2000
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Margarita Perez appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
    complaint   for    lack      of    subject   matter   jurisdiction.         Legal
    conclusions       on        jurisdiction        are   reviewed      de      novo.
    Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 
    190 F.3d 299
    , 302 (5th Cir. 1999).
    Pursuant     to    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (g),   “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 proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal
    orders against any alien under this chapter”. Perez’s complaint
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    arises from the Attorney General’s actions to execute a deportation
    order.   The district court concluded properly that it did not have
    subject-matter   jurisdiction.        Reno   v.      American-Arab    Anti-
    Discrimination Committee, 
    525 U.S. 471
    , 
    119 S. Ct. 936
    , 940-41
    (1999); Alvidres-Reyes v. Reno, 
    180 F.3d 199
    , 201, 205 (5th Cir.
    1999).
    Perez’s reliance on Hernandez v. Reno, 
    91 F.3d 776
     (5th Cir.
    1996), is misplaced.   It was decided prior to the enactment of the
    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
    and, thus, does not address the scope of the district court’s
    jurisdiction   under   §   1252(g)   to   consider    a   challenge   to   a
    deportation order.
    AFFIRMED
    - 2 -