1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3229

___________ Julio G. Ibarra-Terrazas, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Alberto Gonzales, * United States Attorney General, * * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: June 13, 2006 Filed: August 28, 2006

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, AR NOLD, Circuit Judge, and DOTY, 1 District Judge.

___________ ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. Julio Ibarra-Terrazas appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed as untimely his appeal fro m an immigration judge's decision finding him removable and ineligible for re lief from deportation. We affirm. Mr. Ibarra-Terrazas, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty in state court to two counts of ind ecent liberties with a child under sixteen years-2- of age and served over two years' impris onment. The Department of Justice then instituted deportation proceedings against hi m. An immigration judge in Missouri ordered Mr. Ibarra-Terrazas to be deporte d and rejected his request for relief from deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his appeal of the immigration judge's decision as untimely because it was filed one day later than allowed by the regulation in effect at the tim e, 8 C.F.R. § 3.38(b) (1997). Mr. IbarraTerrazas then filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in a federal district court in Texas. But new legislation required the distri ct court to transfer Mr. Ibarra-Terrazas's pending case to this c ourt, the court of appeals for the circuit where the immigration judge had decided hi s case. The Real ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, § 106, 119 Stat. 231, 310-11 (May 11, 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). We treat a case transferred under § 106(c) of The Real ID Act as if it was filed as a petition fo r review under § 1252. See The Real ID Act, Div. B, § 106(c), 119 Stat at 311. The government contends that we do not have jurisdicti on over Mr. IbarraTerrazas's petition because it fails to raise a constitutional claim or a question of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Salkeld v. Gonzales , 420 F.3d 804, 809 (2005). We disagree. Mr. Ibarra-Terrazas maintains that the Board should have addressed the merits of his appeal despite its tardine ss because the handling of the appeal was governed by 8 C.F.R. § 1103.3 and § 103.5(a)(3), which require that a decision on the merits be made if an untimely appeal meets certain requirements. Whether these regulations require a decision on the merits here is a question of law, which we have jurisdiction to address. Unfortunately for Mr. Ibarra-Terrazas, the re gulations that he cites apply to untimely appeals to decisions made by service officers. An appeal to the Board of an immigration judge's decision, on the othe r hand, is governed by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38 (previously 8 C.F.R. § 3.38), which states that a notice of appeal "s hall be filed within-3- 30 calendar days after" the immigrati on judge's decision. The Board properly dismissed his appeal as untimely and declar ed the immigration judge's decision final.

Affirmed.

______________________________