UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Meza AISPURO, Defendant-Appellant, 127 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Meza AISPURO, Defendant-Appellant, 127 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Foster v. Department of Homeland Security (azd, 2020-06-23)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l) cited 2× in this case · 4 total citations of statute #8 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(l) cited 1× in this case · 14 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Foster v. Department of Homeland Security
D. Ariz. · 2020 · confidence medium
Dec. 23, 2016) 26 (same); United States v. Aispuro, 127 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) 27 (same); Cabrera v. Culpepper, No. 3:09cv483, 2009 WL 4048239 , at *3 (N.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Angel-Martinez
D.N.J. · 1997 · confidence medium
This statutory mandate precludes a district court from making any determination of a defendant’s deportability. *481 Although Congress provided one exception to this jurisdictional bar, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3), that exception requires that the United States Attorney request deportation and that the Commissioner consent, 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (c)(1); see Romeo, 122 F.3dat 943 (district court may enter deportation order at sentencing “only if’ the United States Attorney requests it and the Commissioner consents); Flores-Uribe, 106 F.3d at 1488 ; United States v. Aispuro, 127 F.3d 1133, 1134…
discussed Cited "see" (HC) Lua v. United States
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. 18 Aispuro, 127 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (“The district court lacked 19 jurisdiction to order Aispuro deported because the United States Attorney did not request 20 Aispuro’s deportation.”). 21 The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not available in the instant case because “the 22 Attorney General may not remove an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment until the alien is 23 released from imprisonment,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(4)(A), and “Petitioner does not have a private 24 right of action to compel the Attorney General to remove him from t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7243, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,709 United States of America
v.
Angel Meza Aispuro
96-50574.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 9, 1997.
127 F.3d 1133
Angel Meza Aispuro, Lompoc, California, pro se., Mary E. Fulginiti, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellee.
Schroeder, Fernandez, Rymer.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

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)(l) (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.

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)(l), redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l) 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).

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, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2087-88, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) (establishing test to determine if private right of action exists).

AFFIRMED.