Case Name: Luis DIAZ-TOSCANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-02
Citations: 127 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 03-73282
Parties: Luis DIAZ-TOSCANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BEEZER, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
Luis DIAZ-TOSCANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73282.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted on briefs April 15, 2005.
Decided May 2, 2005.
Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, BEEZER, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument See fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Luis Diaz-Toscano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned our court for review of the BIA's decision reversing the IJ's decision granting cancellation of removal. The IJ granted cancellation of removal after Diaz-Toscano conceded removability. The BIA vacated the IJ's decision, then granted voluntary departure, with an alternative order that Diaz-Toscano be removed to Mexico.
The BIA had no authority to issue an order removing Diaz-Toscano to Mexico. See Molinar-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937, 941 (9th Cir.2004). As in Molinar-Camacho, the BIA's act of issuing an ultra vires removal order "renders that portion of the proceedings a 'legal nullity.' " Id. (quoting Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir.2003)). Thus, we have no final order of removal before us, and we lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review this petition. See Molinar-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942.
We therefore treat Diaz-Toseano's petition for review as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and transfer this petition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco division. See Molinar-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 941; 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Diaz-Toscano "may make any necessary amendments to perfect the form of the petition." See Molino-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942.
TRANSFERRED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 3'6-3.