Opinion
No. 3-04-CV-2068-H.
October 1, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Emilia Tute Atakpor, by and through her counsel of record, has filed an appeal and motion for stay of deportation. For the reasons stated herein, this case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was ordered removed from the United States after an immigration judge denied her request for asylum. The Bureau of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") recently affirmed this decision. Petitioner now appeals to this court and seeks a stay of deportation "pending the resolution of this matter." (Pet. Mot. at 1, ¶ 4).
II.
Petitioner does not identify the jurisdictional basis of her motion. However, the court notes that a removal order is subject to federal judicial review in one of two ways. First, an alien may appeal a final order of removal issued by the BIA. Such an appeal must be taken to the court of appeals for the circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2); Garnica-Vasquez v. Reno, 210 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 2000); Finlay v. I.N.S., 210 F.3d 556, 557 (5th Cir. 2000). A district court is without jurisdiction to review a removal order. See Nsangwa v. INS, 2001 WL 910391 at * 1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2001), citing Udemze v. Strapp, 977 F. Supp. 418, 421 (N.D. Tex. 1997).
Second, a district court has habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review a removal order. Seel N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 2287, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). This review is limited to questions of law. Id., 121 S.Ct. at 2287. Here, petitioner does not allege that the removal order is legally insufficient or otherwise improper. Rather, she seeks only a stay of deportation until the court decides her appeal. Such a request is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner's appeal and motion to stay deportation should be dismissed for lack of s matter jurisdiction.