F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 05, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1313 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 20 40 5 C V-JLK CARLOS PRADILLA, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us AL BE RT O G ON ZA LE S, MICH AE L C HE RT OF F, S e c r e t a ry, D e p a rt men to f Ho mel a n dS e c u r i t y, Re spon de nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 5, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , F A Y a nd S IL E R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s, *2

PE R CU RIA M: The Im m igration Ju dge (“ IJ”) order ed Carlos Pr adilla deported on Decem ber 14, 2001. On January

20, 2004, the Board of I m m igration Appeals (“ BIA ”) issued its f ina l or de r of

de porta tio n. P ra dil lac ha lle nge d th is o rd er in a pe tit ionf

or w ri t of habeas corpus filed on February 19, 2004. T he district court dism issed the habeas petition on March 31, 2005. P radilla filed his notice of appeal to this court on May 24, 200 5. P ra dil laf

ile d hi s a ppe al sho rt ly

a ft er the May 11, 200 5 e ff

ec tiv e da te of the RE A L I D A ct , P ub. L . N o. 109 -1 3, 119 S ta t. 311 ( 2005 ), w hic h a m en de d 8 U . S. C. § 12 52 t o e lim inate a lie ns’ abil ity to use ha be as c or pus pe tit ion s to ch al le nge the ir

r em ova l or de rs a nd t o e sta bli sh the c ourts o f ap pe al s a s th e sol e m eans o f re vie w . 8 U
. S. C. § 12 52( a) (5 ). T he A ct e xpr es sly

pr ovi de d th at

it w oul d apply retroac tively

to cases in which the final order of rem oval was issued “ before, on, or a ft er ” the May

11, 200 5, e ff

ec tiv e da te . P ub. L . N o. 109 -1 3, § 10 6( c) , 119 Stat. 311 (200 5). Sec tion 1 06(c) of the A ct specifically provides th at cases pe ndi ng i n di str ic t c ourts at the ti m e of e na ctm en t are to be tr an sf er re d to the c ourts of appe al s f or handl ing a s pe tit ion s f

or dir ec t r ev ie w ; the statut e is s ile nt a bout how to ha nd le habe as cas es alr ead y pe nd in g b efo re t he co ur ts of app eal s. As noted, the district court issued the final order dism issin g the instant case, an d c los ed

the c as e, on M ar ch31, 200 5. H ow ev er , the not ic e of appe al w as notSection 242(b)( 1), codifie d as 18 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1) , require s that petitions for 1 direc t reviewbe filed w ithin thi rty day s of the B IA’s dec ision. As noted, a transf ormed ha beas case is not subject to the thirty day deadline, but r ather

is to be treate d as timely

by the cour t of appea ls. See I shak v. Gonzales, 422 F .3d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 2005). In the instant case , Pradilla’s habea s petition was filed within the thirty day period, but under

§106(c) would have be en tre ated as timely in any event. 3 fil edun ti l M ay

24 , 20 05 , sh or tl y

aft er t he May 11, 2 00 5, ef fect iv e d at e o f th e Act
. The j urisdictio n of the district court over the case w as not div ested until th e May 24 n oti ce of

appe al
. G ri ggs v. P ro vid en t C onsum er D isc ount Co
. , 459 U . S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct
. 400 , 401 ( 1982 ). T hus, thi s c as e w as pe ndi ng i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt onthe May 11, 200 5, e ff

ec tiv e da te of

e na ctm en t, a nd f

al ls s quare ly

w ith in the langua ge of the A ct r equir ing tr an sf

er of the c as e to the c ourt of

appe al s. S ec tio n 10 6( c) of A ct pr ovi de s a s f

oll ow s: (c ) T RA N SF E R O F CA SE S.
-- If

a n a lie n' s c as e, br ough t un de r se ct ion 2241 of title 28, U nited States Code, a nd challengin g a final adm ini str at ive or de r of

r em ova l, de porta tio n, or

e xc lus ion , is pe ndi ng in a dis tr ic t c ourt onthe da te of the e na ctm en t of

thi s di vis ion , the n th e district court shall transfer the ca se (or the part of the case that challenges the order of re m oval, deportation, or exclusion) to the court of appe al s f or the c ir cu it in whic h ape tit ionf or r ev ie wc oul d have be enpr ope rl y

f ile d un de r se ct ion242 (b )( 2) of the I m m igr at iona nd Na tionalit y

Ac t (8 U. S. C. 1252 ), as am ended by this section , or under se ct ion309 (c )( 4) (D ) of

the I lle ga l I m

m igr at ionRe fo rm

a nd I m m igr an t Re spon sib ili ty

A ct of 199 6 ( 8 U
. S. C. 110 1 no te ). T he c ourt of appe al s sha ll tr eat the tr an sf

er re d c as e as if

it ha d be enf

ile d purs uant t o a pe tit ionf or r ev ie wund er

suc h se ct ion242 , e xc ep t tha t su bse ct ion ( b ) ( 1 ) o f s u c h s e c t i o n s h a l l n o tap p l y. 1 § 10 6( c)
. T hus, the ins tant h ab ea s c or pus ca se , c ha lle ngi ng a

f ina l or de r ofWe note that the brief s of the par

ties in this case assumed that the case was 2 pe nd ingin t

his c ourt at th e date of

e na c tme nt. Al tho ugh th at a ssumpt ion is i nc or re c t, t he c a se law indicate s that the result would be the same in any event. At lea st five circ uits have held that a habe as petition pendingbefor e the a ppeals c ourt is transforme d into a petition for direc t review
. See Gittens v. Menife e, 428 F .3d 382 (2d Cir. 2005); Rosales v. B urea u of Immigration & Customs Enforc ement, 426 F .3d 733 (5th Cir. 2005); I shak v. Gonzales, 422 F .3d 22, 30 (1st Cir. 20 05 ); Al va

re z-B ara ja s v . G on zal e s, 41 8 F .3 d 1 05 0 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 5) ; B onho me tr e v. Go nza le s, 414 F.3d 442 ( 3d Cir. 2005); see a lso Feldman v. G onzales, 2005 WL3113488 (6th Cir. Nov. 21 , 2 00 5) (r e lyingon

B onho me tr e to r e a c h s ame c on c lus ion wi tho ut d isc us sin gra

tio na le ). Th e se courts have rea soned that Cong ress mer ely made a n oversig ht when it did not include habea s petitions pending in fr ont of the cour ts of appea ls, and that the cle ar intent of the leg islation was to cre ate one means of c halleng ing or ders of remova l. Alvare z-Bar ajas, 418 F .3d at 1053; B onho me tr e , 4 14 F .3 d at 44 6. Al tho ugh w e ne e d n ot s o h old , th e re a so nin gof the se c ir c uit s appea rs to be sound. 4 de porta tio n, is tr an sf

orm ed int o ape tit ionf

or dir ec t r ev ie w , r ev ie w ab le by thi s co urt purs uant t o 8 U
. S. C. § 12 52 ( a) (5 ). W e de cl ine to re qui re the f uti le a ct of
re m an din g to the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithdir ec tio ns tha t i t e nte r anor de r tr an sf er ri ng the
ca se to thi s c ourt. 2 T ur nin g to the m er its of

the pe tit ionf

or r ev ie w , w e co nc lud e that the pe tit ion is without m erit for reasons fully discussed at

or al a rg um en t. A cc or din gly , the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wis DENIED.