Case Name: Nicholas S. BEHARRY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 218 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 05-2402
Parties: Nicholas S. BEHARRY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Nicholas S. BEHARRY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 05-2402.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2007.
Nicholas S. Beharry, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Song E. Park, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On October 31, 2005, Nicholas S. Behar-ry, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court challenging an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirms the Immigration Judge's order of removal. The district court transferred the habeas corpus petition to this court, and it was docketed as a petition for review of the Board's order.
We find that the habeas petition was not properly transferred to this court and may not be considered a timely petition for review. See Chen v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 788, 790 (7th Cir.2006) (noting that a § 2241 petition challenging a removal order filed in the district court after the enactment of the Real ID Act on May 11, 2005, must be dismissed); Medellin-Reyes v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 721, 723-24 (7th Cir.2006) (finding that collateral proceedings filed after May 11, 2005, will be dismissed outright, given that the window for belated judicial review has closed). Nor does the district court have jurisdiction over the petition. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(9) (West 2005).
We accordingly dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Beharry's pending motion to stay removal as moot and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED.