'" Id. Thus, the district court properly complied with the REAL ID Act by transferring the alien's habeas case to this court. Id; see also Codina v. Chertoff, 283 Fed.Appx. 432, 433 (8th Cir. 2008) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming the district court's dismissal of the alien's ยง 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that "[t]o the extent [the alien's] petition challenged her detention based on alleged procedural and clerical flaws in her removal proceedings, it essentially challenged her removal order, which the district court lacked jurisdiction to review in a habeas proceeding"). We find Haider controlling, as Skurtu's "Complaint" attacks the IJ's order of removal, therefore vesting this court with the "sole and exclusive means for judicial review.
The Act does not affect a district court's jurisdiction over habeas petitions challenging the detention associated with a removal order, however. See H.R. Rep. No. 109-72, at 175 (2005), U.S. Code Cong. Admin.News 2005, pp. 240, 300 (Conf.Rep.); see also Codina v. Chertoff, 283 Fed.Appx. 432, at *1 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Gul v. Rozon, 163 Fed.Appx. 317, at *1 (5th Cir. 2006); Moallin v. Cangemi, 427 F.Supp.2d 908, 920-21 (D.Minn. 2006). This court granted Bah's petition for review of his BIA decision and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings on August 9, 2006.Bah v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
(ECF No. 11, at 1 ("On June 4, 2017, I filed a motion to reopen my immigration removal and deportation order with the United States District Court, District of Minnesota. . . . I am attempting to appeal the order for my deportation . . . ."); ECF No. 12, at 1 (asking the Court to "reverse his illegal immigration status and reinstate his approved political asylum in the United States"); ECF No. 14 (moving for an injunction of any deportation)). Because Anyanwu is challenging his deportation order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his challenge. Codina v. Chertoff, 283 F. App'x 432, 433 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) ("To the extent Codina's [ยง 2241] petition challenged her detention based on alleged procedural and clerical flaws in her removal proceedings, it essentially challenged her removal order, which the district court lacked jurisdiction to review in a habeas proceeding."). As such, this proceeding must be transferred to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Haider v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 902, 910 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court "rightly complied with the REAL ID Act by transferring [petitioner's] habeas case" to the Eighth Circuit where it did "nothing more than attack the [immigration judge's] removal order"); Tostado, 481 F.3d at 1014; Skurtu, 552 F.3d at 655-58.
; Codina v. Chertoff, 283 Fed. App'x 432, 433 (8th Cir. 2008); Casas-Castrillon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2008); Taylor v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 241 Fed. App'x 6, 9 (3d Cir. 2007); Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 147 (2d Cir. 2003). Further, Tindi is currently detained pursuant to ยง 1226(a) because he is awaiting a "decision on whether [he] is to be removed from the United States."
Accordingly, the Court construes Petitioner's habeas corpus petition and accompanying TRO motion to be challenging the validity of Petitioner's removal order.See Skurtu v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 651, 657, 658 (8th Cir. 2008) (construing Fifth Amendment due process challenges, including immigration judge's failure to develop more fully the record, and assertion of error regarding immigration judge's decision not to appoint counsel as seeking review of immigration judge's removal order); Codina v. Chertoff, 283 Fed. App'x 432, 433 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) ("To the extent Codina's [ยง 2241] petition challenged her detention based on alleged procedural and clerical flaws in her removal proceedings, it essentially challenged her removal order . . . ."). Petitioner also checked a box on the habeas corpus petition form indicating that she is challenging "[d]isciplinary proceedings," and listed "disciplinary proceedings, outcomes and notes, adverse to me, added to my detainee file" at the facility where she was previously detained.
Section 1231, however, generally does not become applicable until a final removal order is in place, thereby triggering the computation of the removal period. See Codina v. Chertoff, 283 F. App'x 432 (8th Cir. July 24, 2008) (petitioner was not yet under a final order of removal, and thus, no violation of Zadvydas could have occurred), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1113 (2009); Smith v. Tsoukaris, 2011 WL 6002464, at *2 (D. N.J. Nov. 30, 2011) (unpublished) (the six-month "presumptively reasonable period of detention," as set out in Zadvydas begins to run anew every time the alien's order of removal becomes "administratively final"); Jaime v. Kane, 2008 WL 2186377, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2008) (unpublished) (Section 1231(a) does not apply until the removal period has commenced). In accordance with 8 U.S.C. ยง 1231(a)(1)(B), the removal period begins on the latest of the following:
The Eighth Circuit has held that challenges alleging procedural defects in removal proceedings are essentially challenges to the removal order. Codina v. Chertoff, 283 Fed.Appx. 432, 2008 WL 2831993 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Haider v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 902, 910 (8th Cir. 2006)). For the reasons discussed above, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider petitioner's habeas petition.
The Eighth Circuit, however, has held that a district court does not have jurisdiction when a habeas petition is, in effect, an attack on the removal proceedings. See Haider v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 902, 910 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that constitutional challenge to the notice provided was, in effect, a challenge to the order of removal); see also Codina v. Chertoff, No. 07-2422, 2008 WL 2831993, at * 1 (8th Cir. July 24, 2008) (holding district court had no jurisdiction where petitioner's challenge to her detention, based on alleged procedural and clerical flaws in her removal proceedings, was essentially a challenge to her removal). Upon consideration, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Petition because it is, in essence, a challenge to Petitioner's removal proceedings.
As noted above, Petitioner claims that his removal order is invalid because he was deprived of his right to due process during his removal proceedings. That claim, however, cannot be entertained in a habeas corpus action filed in a federal district court. Haider v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 902, 910 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court correctly concluded that alien could not challenge his removal order, based on alleged "lack of notice," in a habeas corpus proceeding); Codina v. Chertoff, No. 07-2422 (8th Cir. July 24, 2008), 2008 WL 2831993 (unpublished opinion) at *1 (to the extent that habeas petitioner "challenged her detention based on alleged procedural and clerical flaws in her removal proceedings, it essentially challenged her removal order, which the district court lacked jurisdiction to review in a habeas proceeding"). Ordinarily, when an alien improperly attempts to challenge a removal order by filing a federal habeas corpus petition in district court, the case will be transferred to the apposite federal circuit court of appeals.