### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-60367

RITA ZAMORA,
Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

The Respondent urges this Court to dismiss the petition for review filed by Ms. Rita Zamora for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Zamora seeks review of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s denial of her I-130 visa petition. We agree that we l a c k jurisdiction to hear this case as a petition for

r e view taken directly from the Board of Immigration Appeals. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. However, we have held that federal courts do have subject-matter U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 4, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-60367 Document: 00511996857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2012No. 12-60367

jurisdiction “to review the determinations made with respect to [a petitioner’s] I–130 petition.” Ayanbadejo v. Chertoff , 517 F.3d 273, 2 76 (5th Cir. 2008). There, we held that “determinations pertaining to I–130 petitions are not precluded from review by courts pursuant to § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)” because they are not discretionary. Id. at 279. However, this case must first be heard in the district court. See id. at 276 (notin g a district court has jurisdiction to review I-130 visa petition determinations). Because the denial of an I-130 visa petition is n o t a final removal order, our jurisdiction is p r o p erly invoked on appeal from the district court, not via a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a); 5 U.S.C. § 702 (judicial review of agency action); accord Ruiz v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 269, 274-75 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2009) (following Ayanbadejo and observing that “the denial of an I-130 petition by the BIA constitutes final agency action subject to judicial review as the agency has completed its decisionmaking process and the result of that process will directly affect the parties”) (internal citation, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). Because we lack original jurisdiction over this matter but a district court would have jurisdiction under Ayanbadejo , we transfer this to the appropriate district court because we find it is in “the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631; 1

Sec tio n 16 31 p rovid es : 1
Whene ver a civil act ion isf iledina court as def

inedinsect ion 610 of th is ti tle or an app eal, inclu ding a pet itio n for revie w of adm inis tra tive act ion, is noti ced for or fil ed wi th suc h a court and that court find s that ther e i s a wa nt of juris dic tio n, the court sha ll, if it is in the inte res t of justice, tra nsf er suc h act ion or app eal to any othe r suc h cour t in which the act ion or app eal coul d have been brou ght at the tim e it w a s f i l e d o r noti ced , and the act ion or app eal sha ll p r o c e e d as if it had been fil ed in or noti ced for the court to wh ich i t i s t r a nsf err ed on the dat e upon wh ich it wa s act ually fil ed in or noti ced fo r t h e court fr omw hich it is tra nsf err ed.
Sec tio n 610 def

ines thos e courts to inclu de f e d eral courts of app eals and dis tri ct courts

. Id. § 6 10. 2 Case: 12-60367 Document: 00511996857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2012No. 12-60367

s e e Ruiz , 552 F.3d at 276-77 (transferring case). As the record reflects that Zamora is a resident of Houston, Texas, the most appropriate district court is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED and the case is TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 t o th e U nited States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

3 Case: 12-60367 Document: 00511996857 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/24/2012