Opinion ID: 45357
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Transfer of CAT Claim

Text: 5 Section 106(c) of the REAL ID Act provides that if an alien’s § 2241 habeas petition challenges a final administrative order of removal, the district court shall transfer the case to the circuit court of appeals where a petition for review could have been properly filed. Specifically, § 106(c) states: If an alien’s case, brought under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, and challenging a final administrative order of removal . . . is pending in a district court on the date of the enactment of this division, then the district court shall transfer the case . . . to the court of appeals for the circuit in which a petition for review could have been properly filed . . . . REAL ID Act § 106(c), Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 311. Dorisme concedes that he is removable for overstaying his visa, but requests relief from removal in the form of asylum, withholding of removal or protection under CAT. Dorisme does not contest the transfer of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. However, Dorisme argues that the portion of his § 2241 petition seeking review of the denial of CAT relief does not constitute a challenge to his final order of removal and, thus, should not have been transferred pursuant to § 106(c). The problem for Dorisme is that we lack appellate jurisdiction to review a transfer order of a district court sitting outside this circuit. See, e.g., Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2001); Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982, 985-87 (11th Cir. 1982). Indeed, 6 Dorisme has appealed the transfer order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. See Dorisme v. Gonzalez, No. 06-1242 (2d Cir. filed Mar. 16, 2006). In any event, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of Dorisme’s CAT claim because he failed adequately to raise it before the BIA. See Sundar v. INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the exhaustion requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) is jurisdictional and bars review of claims not raised before the BIA); De La Teja v. U.S., 321 F.3d 1357, 1366 (11th Cir. 2003); see also INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Thus, we address only the merits of Dorisme’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.