2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-31-2008 

# D aley v . S ecret ary H omel and P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4266

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D aley v . S e cr e t ary H ome l a nd " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1356. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1356NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4266 DE ON E AR L DAL E Y, A ppel l ant

v. U. S . DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y; BU REA U O F I M M I GR ATI ON & CU STOM S ENFORC EM ENT;

T HOMAS V. DUR AN O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 01443) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M A R C H 19, 2008 Bef or e : SLO V I TER , BA RR Y A N D G RE EN BE RG , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( O pi ni on fi l ed M ar ch 31, 2008)

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM D eon Ear l D al eyappea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. T he pr ocedur al hi s t or yof thi s cas e and the det ai l s ofO n J anuary8, 2008, t hi s C our tdeni ed D al ey ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew of hi s r emoval 1 o rd e r. S e e D a le yv . A tto rn e yG e n ., N o . 0 7 -3 2 9 5 , 2 0 0 8 W L 7 3 6 8 8 (3 d C ir . J a n . 8 , 2 0 0 8 ). T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, r athert han tr ans fer t he mat t ert o t hi s C our tunder28 U . S. C . § 1631, w as ent i r el yappr opr i at e. 2 D al ey ’ s cl ai m s ar e w el l know n t o t he part i es , s etfor t h i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s t hor ough or der , and nee d notbe di s cus s ed atl ength. D al ey , a ci t i zen of J amai ca, fi l ed a § 2241 p eti ti o n ch all en g ing h is r em o v al ord er a n d h is co n ti n u ed d eten ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d ism iss e d th e p e tit io n . D a ley file d a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons . C r adl e v. U . S. ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat itd id n o t hav e jurisdicti o n o v er D aley ’s c h a llen g e to h is re m o v a l o rd e r. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(5 ). A s f o r D a ley’s c h a llen g e to 1 hi s det ent i on, he w as s t i l l w i t hi n t he pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e s i x- m ont h pos t - r emoval per i od att he t i m e of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . See Zadvy das v. D avi s , 533 U . S. 678, 701 (20 0 1 ). F o r th e a b o v e re a so n s, a s w e ll as th o se se t f o rth b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s O ct ober29, 2007 or der . D al ey ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s i s deni ed.