Case Name: Martiniano PACHECO-TELLEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, U.S. DHS Secretary, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-05
Citations: 276 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 05-17383
Parties: Martiniano PACHECO-TELLEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, U.S. DHS Secretary, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
Martiniano PACHECO-TELLEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, U.S. DHS Secretary, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-17383.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 5, 2008.
Martiniano Pacheco-Tellez, Eloy, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Cynthia M. Parsons, USPX-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martiniano Pacheco-Tellez, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253(a), Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Reviewing de novo, id., we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Pacheeo-Tellez's petition because it was filed on November 14, 2005, after the REAL ID Act's effective date. See id. at 1041 ("[Ajfter May 11, 2005, the only means for judicial review of Puri's removal order was a petition for review in this court."). Moreover, Pacheco-Tellez exercised his right to file a petition for review, which we dismissed in Pacheco-Tellez v. Gonzales, No. 05-71741 (9th Cir. July 21, 2005) (order). See Puri, 464 F.3d at 1043 (declining to transfer habeas petition and noting that "Puri was aware of the proper procedure for review, as evidenced by the fact that he also filed a petition for review with this court").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.