## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1562

___________ Myrna Gregoria Ochoa-Carrillo, * * Petitioner, * * v. * Petition for a Writ of Habeas * Corpus and Stay of Removal. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * of the United States, et al., * * Respondents. *

___________ Submitted: April 18, 2006 Filed: May 1, 2006

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ LOKEN, Chief Judge.
When the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enfo rcement reinstated a prior order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), Myrna Ochoa-Carrillo filed a petition for judicial review in this court and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Western District of Missouri. We denied the petition for review and urged the district court to transfer the habeas petiti on to this court pursuant to Section 106(c) of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-13, Div. B, Tit. I. SeeOchoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales , 437 F.3d 842, 846 n.5, 848 (8 th Cir. 2006). Ochoa-Carrillo argues that the transfer was improper. We disagree a nd accordingly dismiss the habeas petition.-2- Section 106 was enacted to reduce overlapping judicial review and habeas corpus jurisdiction created by the decision in INS v. St. Cyr , 533 U.S. 289 (2001). SeeGrass v. Gonzales , 418 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3133 (2006). Section 106 amended th e Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that “a petition for re view filed with an appropriate court of appeals shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e) .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis added). Subsec tion 1252(e)(2) authorizes limited habeas corpus review of expedited removal orders issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Ochoa-Carrillo’s removal order was issued pursuant to § 1225(b)(1). Therefore, she argues, she is eligible for habeas review under § 1252(e)(2), and we erred in urging the district court to transfer her habeas petition to this court.

The flaw in this contention is that it improperly equates the initial removal order issued under § 1225(b)(1) with the order rein stating that removal order issued under § 1231(a)(5). Section 1231(a)(5) provides fo r an expedited reinstatement proceeding in which the “prior order of removal . . . is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” This means that the limited habeas re view of removal or ders issued under § 1225(b)(1) that is authorized by § 1252(e)(2) may not be conducted in a § 1231(a)(5) reinstatement proceeding. Thatexplains why § 1231(a)(5) reinstatement proceedings were excluded from the § 1252(e )(2) exception. Thus, judicial review in the appropriate court of appeals is th e “sole and exclusive” means to review a § 1231(a)(5) order reinstating a prior removal order, and § 106(c) of the REAL ID Act mandated the transfer of Ochoa-Carrillo’s habeas petition to this court.
Section 106(c) provides that, when a hab eas case is transferred, we “shall treat the transferred case as if it had been file d pursuant to a petition for review” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We have previously review ed Ochoa-Carrillo’s reinstatement order. Accordingly, this habeas petition must now be dismissed.

______________________________