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
1-23-2008 

# M ont eiro v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-4830

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" M on t eir o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1717. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1717NOT 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. 06- 4830

I BR AL T I NO C AR L OS M ONT E I RO , Pet i t i oner

v. A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent

___________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 76- 487- 306 I ni t i al l yD ocket ed as an A ppeal fr om N J D C N o. 06- cv- 03010 Pr i ort o t he Enact m entof t he R eal I D A ctof 2005
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t3, 2007
B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J anuary23, 2008 )2 _________ O P I N I O N

__________ P ER CURI AM T hi s m at t ercomes t o us as a t r ans ferfr om t he U n it ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , os t ens i bl y pur s uant t o t he R E A L I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L
. N o. 109- 13. W e a g re e th a t w e lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e m a tter, a n d w ill th e re f o re d ism iss it. Ibra lt ino C arlos M o n tei ro fil ed a pe ti ti o n fo r a w ri t of m an d am u s in the D istri ct C o u rt i n J une of 2006 pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1361. M o n t ei r o cl ai m ed t hathe w as el i gi bl e for der i v a t i v e c i t i z e n s h i p a n d a r g u e d t h a t h e was b a r r e d f r o m c i t i z e n s h i p o n l y b e c a u s e of t he G over nm ent ’ s del ayi n adj udi cat i ng an appl i cat i on. H e s oughtt o have t he C our tdi r ectt he G over nm entt o appr ove nunc pr o t unc an appl i cat i on forci t i zens hi p eff ect i ve J ul y16, 1999 ( a day befor e hi s ei ght eenth bi r t hday )
. I n t he meant i m e, an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) ent er ed
an o rde r of

rem o v al ag ains t M o n tei ro o n A u g u st 4, 20 0 6
. O n N o v em b er 3 , 2 0 0 6 , M o n tei ro fi l ed a mot i on fors t ayof re m oval w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t , not i ng t hat he fear ed he w oul d be
rem o v ed b ef

o re the D istri ct C o u rt en tered a de cisi o n o n h is m an d am u s p eti ti o n . T h e B o ard of I m m igrati o n A ppeal s ( B I A ) di s m i s s ed M ont ei r o’ s appea l of t he I J ’ s deci s i on on N ovember 15, 2006. T h e D istri ct C o u rten tered a d e c is io n o n N o v em b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , d en y ing M o n tei ro’s pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus on t he mer i t s. N o doubti n an abunda nce of caut i on, t heT he G over nm enti ncor r ect l ys t at es t hatM ont ei r o di d not appea l t he I J ’ s deci s i on t o t he 1 B I A
. A s not ed above , t he B I A di d i n fac ti s s ue a de ci s i on di s m i s s i ng M ont ei r o’ s appea l on N ovember 15, 2006. M ont ei r o ’s s t aym ot i on, dat ed N ovember 3, 2006, coul d notbe cons i der ed as a pet i t i on forr evi ew of t hatdeci s i on. T h e sta tu to ryw a iv e r o f th e 3 0 d a y f ili n g re q u ire m e n t o n ly a p p lies to c a se s p e n d in g in 2 the D istri ct C o u rto n the e n ac tm en t date o f th e R ea l I D A ct. S ee R E A L ID A ct § 1 0 6 (c). 3 C our tal s o cons t r ued M ont ei r o’ s m ot i on for a stay o f r emoval as a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a fin al ord er o f re m o v al. T h e C o u rt o rde red that the s taym o ti o n b e tran sfe rred to this C o u rt p u rsu a n t to th e R E A L ID A c t. M o n t e i r o ’ s s t a ymo t i o n , t o t h e e x t e n t i tc o u l d b e c o n s t r u e d a s a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w,
w as f il ed af ter t h e M ay 2 0 0 5 en ac tm en t date o f th e R E A L ID A ct, an d thu s the D istri ct C o u rt d id n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th e p e tit io n a n d w a s n o t au th o riz e d b yth e R E A L ID A c t to t r ans feri tt o t hi s C our t . See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 5) ; R E A L I D A ct§ 106( a) , ( c) , Pub. L
. N o. 109- 13 D i v. B ( per m i t t i ng t r ans fer of habea s pet i t i ons pendi ng i n di s t r i ctcour t s on t he M ay 11, 2005 enac t m entdat e)
. Fur t her m or e, beca us e t he s t aym ot i on, i f i tw as m eantt o be a pet i t i on forr evi ew of t he B I A ’ s deci s i on, w as fi l ed pr emat ur el y ; and, i f i tw as m eantt o be 1
a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f th e IJ’ s d e c isio n , w a s file d m o re th a n 3 0 d a y s af ter th a t d e c isio n ; it i s unt i m el yas a pet i t i on forr evi ew , s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( b) ( 1) , and t he D i s t r i ct C our tl acke d 2 aut hor it y t o t r ans fert he pet i t i on undert he gene r al t r ans fers t atut e, s ee 28 U
. S. C
. § 1631 ( aut hor i zi ng t r ans fer t o any cour t i n w hi ch t he ac t i on coul d have be en br oughtatt i m e i tw as fi l ed)
. A ccor di ngl y , M ont ei r o’ s “pet i t i on” i s not pr oper l ybefor e t he C our tand i s , as ar gued b y R e s p o n d e n t , o t h e r w i s e u n t i m e l y.M o n teiro d id n o t f ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r (n o r d id h e f ile
a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d en y ing h is m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n ); thu s, w e a lso l ac k juri sd ict ion to con side r the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n d en y ing M o n tei ro’s peti t i on for a w ri tof m and am us. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill d i sm i ss the m att er.