Case Name: Jose Angel VASQUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES of America And the Immigration And Naturalization Service, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-09
Citations: 156 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 05-10103
Parties: Jose Angel VASQUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES of America And the Immigration And Naturalization Service, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Jose Angel VASQUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES of America And the Immigration And Naturalization Service, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-10103.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 9, 2005.
Jose Angel Vasquez-Cruz, Abilene, TX, pro se.
Mattie Nell Peterson Compton, Mattie Nell Peterson Compton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent Appellee.
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Angel Vasquez-Cruz appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm for the following reasons:
1. Section 1252(b)(5) of Title 8 is the exclusive statutory method of determining Vasquez-Cruz's claim of citizenship; and this claim must be brought as a petition for review of a final order of removal in this Court. Petitioner failed to assert his claim of United States national status in this Court within thirty days of the final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). In fact, Vasquez-Cruz formally waived his right to appeal the February 20, 2002 immigration judge's order of removal and was removed to Mexico on February 21, 2002. The thirty-day deadline for filing a petition for review of a final order of removal is jurisdictional. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003).
2. Because we could have determined Vaquez-Cruz's claim on direct review, and he failed to pursue that avenue of relief before filing his habeas petition in the district court, dismissal of his habeas petition is appropriate. See Lee v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 778, 785 (5th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.