Villa-Lopez v. Attorney General of the United States ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    4-17-2007
    Villa-Lopez v. Atty Gen USA
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-4822
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Villa-Lopez v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1269.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1269
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    DLD-177                                                      NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ________________
    No. 06-4822
    ________________
    JUAN VILLA-LOPEZ,
    Appellant
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
    SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
    SECURITY; BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES;
    WARDEN OF FCI FORT DIX
    ________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-03050)
    District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
    ________________
    Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    March 29, 2007
    Before:   BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: April 17, 2007)
    ________________
    OPINION
    ________________
    PER CURIAM
    Juan Villa-Lopez appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his petition filed
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. The procedural history of this case
    and the details of Villa-Lopez’s claims are well-known to the parties, set forth in the
    District Court’s opinion, and need not be discussed at length. During deportation
    proceedings in 1991, the government sought to deport Villa-Lopez based on a 1988
    conviction for the first-degree sexual assault of his young daughter. The IJ granted Villa-
    Lopez relief from deportation pursuant to § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality
    Act. On appeal, the BIA reversed the IJ’s decision and ordered Villa-Lopez deported to
    Mexico. 1 In 2003, Villa-Lopez was convicted in the District Court for the Eastern
    District of Wisconsin of illegally re-entering the United States and sentenced to serve
    sixty months in prison. In his § 2241 petition, filed in July 2006, Villa-Lopez sought to
    challenge the 1991 order of removal.2
    The District Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition
    under the REAL ID Act. It further determined that it would not be in the interest of
    justice to transfer the petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to be
    treated as a petition for review because the petition would likely be dismissed as
    untimely. Villa-Lopez filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28
    1
    Villa-Lopez argued in his petition that he was not served with the government’s
    notice of appeal or brief to the BIA in his deportation proceeding. He alleged that he was
    denied the opportunity to defend against the government’s appeal before the BIA.
    However, the government submitted to the District Court the briefs submitted on Villa-
    Lopez’s behalf before the BIA.
    2
    Villa-Lopez explicitly stated in his petition that he was not challenging his
    conviction.
    2
    U.S.C. § 1291.
    We agree with the District Court that it lacked jurisdiction over the § 2241
    petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). We further agree that a transfer of the petition to the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit would not be in the interests of justice. See
    Chen v. Gonzales, 
    435 F.3d 788
    (7th Cir. 2006).
    Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
    appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
    the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
    I.O.P. 10.6.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4822

Judges: Barry, Ambro, Fisher

Filed Date: 4/17/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024