Byron Adelso Ruano-Orellano v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On

APS-110 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4876
________________
BYRON ADELSO RUANO-ORELLANO,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A76 283 765
on April 12, 2004
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 26, 2006
BEFORE: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: February 16, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
This petition originated as a habeas petition in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The petition sought release from detention and a stay of

-- 1 of 3 --

1 To the extent Ruano-Orellano remains in BICE custody and continues to seek release
from detention, such a claim should be presented to the district court in the district in
which he is detained. See Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 445-46 (3d Cir. 2005)
(recognizing that the Real ID Act made petitions for review the exclusive means for
2
removal pending this Court’s adjudication of his then-pending petition for review. It also
argued that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision denying his motion to
reopen was in error.
Soon after the habeas petition was filed, two significant things occurred. First, this
Court denied Ruano-Orellano’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision denying his
motion to reopen. See Ruano-Orellano v. Attorney General, C.A. No. 04-2306 (April 29,
2005) (not precedential opinion). Second, the Congress passed the REAL ID Act of
2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). On the Government’s
motion, the District Court transferred the petition to this Court pursuant to section 106(c)
of that act.
To the extent the original habeas petition challenged Ruano-Orellano’s order of
removal, we would normally treat it as a timely-filed petition for review. See Bonhometre
v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 446 (3d Cir. 2005). However, because we have already
decided his petition for review of the BIA’s April 12, 2004 decision, we must dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2) (court may review final order
of removal only if another court has not decided validity of order). To the extent he seeks
release and a stay of removal pending this Court’s adjudication of the petition for review
filed at 04-2306, that request is moot.1

-- 2 of 3 --

judicial review of orders of removal, but did not eliminate district court habeas
jurisdiction over challenges to detention); 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
3
We will therefore dismiss the petition.

-- 3 of 3 --