Case Name: Kolawale ADELABU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alberto R. GONZALES; et al., Respondents-Appellees; Kolawale Adelabu, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-17
Citations: 166 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: Nos. 01-57011, 02-55468
Parties: Kolawale ADELABU, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alberto R. GONZALES; et al., Respondents—Appellees. Kolawale Adelabu, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 166
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
Kolawale ADELABU, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alberto R. GONZALES; et al., Respondents—Appellees. Kolawale Adelabu, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent—Appellee.
Nos. 01-57011, 02-55468.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Filed Jan. 17, 2006.
Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, is the proper respondent.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kolawale Adelabu appeals pro se from the district court's judgments denying three 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions.
To the extent Adelabu challenges his detention, we dismiss the appeals as moot because Adelabu was removed to Nigeria on September 24, 2003. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir.1991).
To the extent Adelabu challenges his removal proceedings, we construe Adelabu's § 2241 petitions as petitions for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2005). Because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not decide Adelabu's appeal until after Adelabu filed the instant § 2241 petitions, we dismiss the petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.