ARELLANO v. BARR JD SDDO ATD DO NDU DO NDU (2019)

Nestor Vicente Loera Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the district court's order denying his motions for a temporary restraining order, a stay of removal, and to compel the agency to stay his removal, and dismissing his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

“The district court's assertion of jurisdiction is a legal determination that this Court reviews de novo.” Mapoy v. Carroll, 185 F.3d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1999). “Notwithstanding any other provision of law ․, including section 2241 of Title 28, ․ a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals ․ shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision” of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (2018). This provision “expressly eliminate[s] district courts’ habeas jurisdiction over removal orders.” Fernandez v. Keisler, 502 F.3d 337, 346 (4th Cir. 2007).

Additionally, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (2018) states that:

Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, 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.

The district court correctly found that it was without authority to rule on Arellano's motions or adjudicate the habeas petition.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. Loera Arellano v. Barr, No. 2:19-cv-01233-RMG (D.S.C. May 13, 2019). We lack authority to grant Arellano's request to extend the 30-day period to file a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012) (stating that petition for review must be filed within 30 days of the order of removal); Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2) (court may not extend time period for filing a petition for review). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.