Case ID: f-appx_111/html/0966-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dimitri Tatarinov VALEREVEICH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70672.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 1, 2004.
    
    Decided Nov. 1, 2004.
    James R. Patterson, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Office of Immigration Judge, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Jason S. Patil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dimitri Tatarinov Valereveich (“Tatarinov”), a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s January 14, 2003 final order of removal. The BIA summarily affirmed the immigration judge’s ruling that found Tatarinov removable from the United States and denied his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, voluntary departure, and a waiver of inadmissibility in conjunction with cancellation of removal or adjustment of status.

We conclude that Immigration and Nationality Act § 242(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), deprives us of jurisdiction to review Tatarinov’s petition for review because his convictions are qualifying offenses that fall under both 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). See Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135-36 (9th Cir.2000). However, we grant Tatarinov’s request that we treat his petition alternatively as a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an original habeas petition, see Cruz-Aguilera v. INS, 245 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir.2001), we transfer the petition to the District Court for the Southern District of California for further proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See id. at 1074-75.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED; TRANSFER ORDERED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.