Opinion ID: 1302450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The district court correctly ruled that it did not have jurisdiction. In Iasu v. Smith, [7] we held that, for habeas petitions filed after the effective date of the REAL ID Act, a district court plainly lack[s] habeas jurisdiction over challenges to removal orders. [8] Congress amended 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) in the REAL ID Act to provide that a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this [Act]. The scope of our own jurisdiction is arguable, but in order to avoid the constitutional argument raised by Momeni that the REAL ID act could not deprive the courts of habeas jurisdiction without violating the Suspension Clause, [9] we assume for purposes of this decision that we have jurisdiction. [10]