Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40512/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40512-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40512

Summary Calendar

JOSE MARIA VILLATORO-AVILA,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CV-397

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 1999, following his conviction for an aggravated felony, PetitionerAppellant Jose Maria Villatoro-Avila was ordered removed to El Salvador 

pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Villatoro-Avila did not 

appeal the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Fourteen 

years later, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition collaterally challenging his 1999 

removal proceedings on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 15, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40512 Document: 00513761375 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2016
No. 15-40512

2

of a fair trial. Citing the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 

231, the district court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, and

Villatoro-Avila appealed. Reviewing the district court’s ruling de novo, we 

affirm. See Merlan v. Holder, 667 F.3d 538, 539 (5th Cir. 2011); FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(1).

The REAL ID Act immediately and retroactively “divested federal courts 

of jurisdiction over § 2241 petitions attacking removal orders[.]” Rosales v. 

Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005); see 

generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2). Rather, the “sole and exclusive means” of 

seeking judicial review of a removal order is through a petition for review 

directed to the appropriate court of appeals. Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 

F.3d 508, 511 (5th Cir. 2006); § 1252(a)(5).1 Accordingly, the district court 

properly dismissed Villatoro-Avila’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 

Rosales, 426 F.3d at 736.

Villatoro-Avila also contends that the district court erred by dismissing 

his § 2241 petition without considering his timely objections to the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation. He fails, however, to show that the 

district court’s omission prejudiced him. See McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-

32 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled on unrelated grounds, Kansa Reins. Co., Ltd. v. 

Congressional Mortgage Corp. of Texas, 20 F.3d 1362, 1373-74 (5th Cir. 1994);

Rodriguez v. Pitzer, 76 F. App’x 519, 520 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, any error 

by the district court in failing to consider Villatoro-Avila’s objections prior to 

dismissing his § 2241 petition was harmless. See McGill, 17 F.3d at 732.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 

1 The sole exception to the prohibition against review of removal orders under § 2241, 

pertaining to aliens seeking asylum upon arrival at a United States port of entry, does not 

apply in this case. See § 1252(a)(2)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).

 Case: 15-40512 Document: 00513761375 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2016