United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of CaliforniaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IGNACIO MORA JIMENEZ and MARIA
ANGELICA BERBER MACIAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security, NANCY ALCANTAR, Field
Office Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and ALBERTO GONZALES,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondents.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 06-4790 SBA
ORDER
[Docket No. 12]
This is a habeas case filed by Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, to attack a final
removal order issued by an Immigration Judge and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The Court dismissed the case because it lacked jurisdiction to hear Petitioners' challenge to their
final removal orders under the Real ID Act of 2005, which eliminated habeas corpus review of
removal decisions in the district courts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Petitioners have now filed a
notice of appeal, which this Court construes as an application for a certificate of appealability
(hereinafter "COA"). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(3).
A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first
obtaining a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A court
shall grant a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate which issues
satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3).
“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing
required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessm