* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 00-10796

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

OMOTAYO TONY FABULUJE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AGENCY;

JANET RENO, Attorney General; DORIS MEISSNER,

Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Serv ice; WILLIAM

HARRINGTON, Dallas Distri ct Director, Immigration and

Naturalization Service; CLAYTON BOOTH, Im m igration and

Naturalization Service, Dallas,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

Dist. Ct. No. 3:00-CV-1347-H

December 5, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *-2-

Omotayo Tony Fabuluje appeals the district court’s denial of his Emergency Injunction and

Stay of Removal Proceedings motion. We now dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction with regard

to transfer of the habeas corpus petition and the denial of the temporary restraining order and affirm

the district court’s denial of the injunction.

F a buluje, a Nigerian native, immigrated to the United States in 1982. He obtained his

citizenship in 1996. Just over a year later, however, Fabuluje was indict ed and co nvicted of (1)

conspiracy to commit interstate theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 659; and (2) obtaining

naturalization by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1424(a). He was sentenced to 24 months

impriso nment for each count. He was stripped of his citizenship one month after receiving his

sentence. We affirmed his conviction on January 27, 2000.

After Fabuluje served his sentence, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

instituted removal proceedings. Fabuluje challenged the commencement of these proceedings and

his detention by the INS by filing for an injunction and stay of those proceedings. Interwoven in his

motion was an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The district court treated Fabuluje’s motion as a motion for a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”). Fabuluje’s TRO motion contained two parts: (1) request for a stay of deportation; and

(2) Sixth Amendment challenge to Fabuluje’s underlying convictions. As to the first part, the district

court found that removal proceedings had not yet been initiated and as such F a buluje had not

exhausted his administrative remedies. The court further found that it could not hear his petition

because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the court of jurisdiction to intervene in the Attorney General’s

decision to commence proceedings.

With regard to the second issue, the court construed Fabuluje’s Sixth Amendment claims as1 We note that in his appeal Fabuluje does not object to the district court’s characterization

of his petition as a petition for a TRO.

-3- a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the distri ct court transferred that porti on of the

petition to Judge Barefoot Sanders, the district court judge who presided over Fabuluje’s trial.

Fab uluje appeals the transfer of his habeas claim to Judge Sanders. The transfer order,

however, is not appealable because it is not a final order. S ee Persyn v. United States

, 935 F.2d 69,

72-73 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that a transfer order is an interlocutory order and, thus, is generally

unappealable); see also Dillon v. State of Miss. Mil. Dept.

, 23 F.3d 915, 917 (5th Ci r. 1994) (“a

judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it ends the liti gat io n o n the merits and leaves

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment”).

Fabuluje appeals the deni al of his TRO. 1 We have no jurisdiction over the denial of an

application for a TRO because it does not qualify as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). S ee

In re Lieb , 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that a temporary restraining order does not

qualify as an injunction for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1)); see also Faulder v. Johnson

, 178

F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999) (“it is well settled that this court has no appellate jurisdiction over the

denial of a temporary restraining order”).

To the extent Fabuluje sought an injunction, we review the district court’s dismissal of his

claim for lack of

jurisdiction de novo. S ee Cardoso v. Reno

, 216 F.3d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 2000)

(applying de novo review to the distric t court’s dismissal of a complaint by an alien seeking an

injunction against the Attorney Ge neral fo r lack of jurisdiction). The district determined that §

1252(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 deprived it of

jurisdiction over Fabuluje’s claim for injunctive relief to stay the removal proceedings. This section-4-

provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by

... any alien arising from

the decision or action by the At t o rney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or

execute removal order against any alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); s ee Reno v. American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Comm.

, 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999) (holding that Section 12 52(g) applies “only to

three discrete actions” described in that section, rather than encompassing every decision that might

be part of the deportati on process, e.g.

, decisio ns t o o pen an investigation). The relief Fabuluje

sought in t he dist rict court is connected “directly and immediately” with the Attorney General’s

decision to commence removal proc eedings against him. S ee Humphries v. Various Fed. USINS

Employees

, 164 F.3d 936, 943 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding that “those claim s connected directly and

immediately with a ‘decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings” are claims

that are “clearly [] included within the definition of ‘arising from’”). Thus, the district court correctly

determined that it was without jurisdiction to consider Fabuluje’s request for a stay of the removal

proceedings.

Accordingly, we DISMISS Fabuluje’s appeal of the transfer of his habeas claim and the denial

of the TRO for lack of jurisdiction and AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Fabuluje’s request for

an injunction.