Alvarez Chairez v. GARLAND
- Sallie Kim
- 3:24-cv-00124
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Alvarez Chairez v. Garland, Judge Kim found preliminary jurisdiction over a notice-of-removal-hearing petition and ordered respondents to explain why the writ should not issue.
Ibett Aracely Alvarez Chairez and the respondents, including Merrick B Garland.
What happened
Alvarez Chairez v. Garland concerns Ibett Aracely Alvarez Chairez’s petition claiming that she was denied notice of her removal hearing and therefore completely deprived of a removal proceeding.
The court made a preliminary finding that it had jurisdiction to consider the claim. It ordered the respondents to show cause by March 11, 2024, why the requested writ should not issue.
This order did not decide whether Alvarez Chairez is entitled to relief. Judge Kim issued an order requiring the respondents to respond.
The detailed version
- Alvarez Chairez v. GARLAND · No. 3:24-cv-00124
- Sallie Kim
- Jan. 9, 2024
Background
Ibett Aracely Alvarez Chairez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court request challenging the legality of a person’s detention or custody. Her petition concerned what she alleged was a complete deprivation of a removal proceeding because she was denied notice of her removal hearing.
Court’s Analysis
The court made a preliminary finding that it had jurisdiction to consider Alvarez Chairez’s claim. The opinion cited a Ninth Circuit decision concerning jurisdiction over this type of claim.
Ruling
The court ordered the respondents to show cause by March 11, 2024, why the writ should not issue. The order did not decide the merits of Alvarez Chairez’s claim or state that the writ would issue.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.