Dure v. Attorney General

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-31-2007
Dure v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2959
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Dure v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1056.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1056
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2959
________________
RENE DURE,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A38 762 600
on July 11, 2002
Immigration Judge: Walter A. Durling
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 15, 2007
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN AND COWEN. CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: May 31, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
1
PER CURIAM
Rene Dure petitions for review of a final order of removal, entered July 11, 2002.
As the petition was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition, and will
dismiss it.
Dure, a native and citizen of Haiti, was found removable by an Immigration Judge
(IJ) on November 6, 2001. The IJ found that Dure had committed an aggravated felony
and was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a). However, the IJ
granted deferral of removal to Haiti under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture (CAT). On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the
aggravated felony determination, held that Dure is ineligible for a waiver or cancellation
of removal, and vacated the award of CAT relief. The BIA entered its final order of
removal on July 11, 2002.
Nearly three years later, on June 3, 2005, Dure filed a counseled § 2241 habeas
petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (where he
was confined). Dure claimed that he was only recently informed of the BIA’s final order
of removal, and he sought to challenge that order on the grounds that CAT relief was
improperly denied and that he should not have been deemed ineligible for a waiver or
cancellation of removal. The District Court, citing the REAL ID Act of 2005– which was
enacted before Dure filed his habeas petition– sua sponte transferred the habeas petition
to this Court to be docketed as a petition for review. The Government filed two motions
2
to dismiss, both of which were referred to this panel.
The REAL ID Act, which became law on May 11, 2005, amended § 242 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that petitions for review filed with the courts
of appeals are the “sole and exclusive means for judicial review of” most orders of
removal, including the order of removal at issue in this case. See INA § 242(a)(5) [8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)]; see also Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 445 (3d Cir.
2005). “In so doing, the Act expressly eliminated district courts’ habeas jurisdiction over
removal orders.” Jordon v. Attorney General, 424 F.3d 320, 326 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing
Bonhometre, 414 F.3d at 445). Thus, when Dure filed his § 2241 petition in June 2005,
the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it. Indeed, after May 11, 2005, the
only means for review of Dure’s removal order was a petition for review.
A petition for review must be filed within 30 days of a final order of removal. See
INA § 242(b)(1) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)]; Malvoisin v. INS, 268 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir.
2001). The courts of appeals “may not extend the time to file” a petition for review of an
order of an administrative board, such as the BIA. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2); Malvoisin,
268 F.3d at 76. Because the BIA’s decision was filed on July 11, 2002, Dure had until
thirty days thereafter to file a timely petition for review.
In his pro se brief, which appears to be a portion of the counseled habeas petition
that was filed in the District Court, Dure argues if he had filed a petition for review prior
to May 11, 2005, which is when the REAL ID Act became law, his petition would have
3
been dismissed due to his aggravated felony conviction. Petitioner’s Brief at 5. However,
he would have been permitted at that time to seek habeas review under § 2241, and he
notes that there was no deadline or limitations period on filing a § 2241 petition to
challenge an order of removal. But because he filed his § 2241 petition after enactment
of the REAL ID Act, Dure notes that he is in the position of having no court with
jurisdiction to review his claims– this Court lacks jurisdiction because the petition for
review is untimely, and the district court no longer has habeas jurisdiction. Claiming that
he is “stranded by retroactive application of the REAL ID Act,” id. at 7, Dure essentially
raises an equitable argument that some court–presumably this one–should exercise
jurisdiction over his claims.
Dure’s argument has some appeal. One might argue that an alien in his situation
should have a grace period of 30 days from May 11, 2005, within which to file a timely
petition for review. In Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 1998), this Court held
that petitioners had one year from the date of enactment of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to file their § 2254 or § 2255 petitions. However,
AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling, see Miller v. New Jersey
State Dep’t of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616 (3d Cir. 1998), whereas courts have held that
the time for filing a petition for review is not. See e.g., Dakane v. Attorney General, 399
F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the solution achieved in Burns is not
appropriate for a petition for review. As the Seventh Circuit recently held, “[a] petition
4
under § 2241 filed in a district court after [May 11, 2005] must be dismissed; it can be
neither entertained nor transferred.” Chen v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 788, 790 (7 th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam).
Under these circumstances, we will grant the government’s motion to dismiss the
petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.1
1
Dure’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. Catney v. INS, 178 F.3d 190,
196 n.9 (3d Cir. 1999).
5