Perez v. Harrington

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 -