Demirchyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 06–73326.

Decision Date09 May 2011
Docket NumberNo. 06–73326.,06–73326.
Citation641 F.3d 1141
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
PartiesArutyun DEMIRCHYAN, Petitioner,v.Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

641 F.3d 1141
11 Cal.
Daily Op. Serv. 5487

Arutyun DEMIRCHYAN, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06–73326.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.Ordered Published May 9, 2011.


[641 F.3d 1142]

Geoffrey Alan Hoffman, Houston, TX, Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, & Pratt PA, Miami, FL, James L. Rosenberg, Esquire, Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.Peter H. Matson, Esquire, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC–District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.Agency No. A028–234–622. D.C. No. 2:08–cv–03452 SVW–MAN.Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The government moves to dismiss Arutyun Demirchyan's case for lack of jurisdiction based on his failure to file a notice of appeal from an order entered by the district court. The motion is denied.

On May 15, 2008, we issued an order transferring Demirchyan's case to the district court “for a de novo review of Demirchyan's citizenship claim” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B), which provides that:

If the petitioner claims to be a national of the United States and the court of appeals finds that a genuine issue of material fact about the petitioner's nationality is presented, the court shall transfer the proceeding to the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the petitioner resides for a new hearing on the nationality claim and a decision on that claim as if an action had been brought under section 2201 of title 28.

Our order directed that Demirchyan's petition for review be held in abeyance pending the district court's citizenship determination.

On September 15, 2010, the district court entered judgment concluding that Demirchyan “is not a U.S. citizen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)” and returning the case “to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings.” See Demirchyan v. Gonzales, No. 08–3452, 2010 WL 3521784, *18–19 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 8, 2010). On December 21, 2010, we issued an order granting the government's motion to lift the order holding Demirchyan's case in abeyance.

The government argues that because a notice of appeal is required for this court to review a judgment in a 28 U.S.C. § 2201...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Anderson v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 12, 2012
    ...relinquished jurisdiction over No. 08–73946 when we transferred it for a limited purpose to the district court. See Demirchyan v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.2011) (“[W]e see no meaningful distinction between transfer under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B) and limited remand.”). In fact, i......
  • Giha v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 2, 2021
    ...purpose, the matter automatically returned to this court upon the district court's entry of its decision. See Demirchyan v. Holder , 641 F.3d 1141, 1142–43 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a transfer under INA § 242(b)(5)(B) is equivalent to a limited remand and does not "relinquish[ ] jurisdi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT