Summary Calendar SERVANDO SIFUENTES-BARRAZA v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 1, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-51202
Summary Calendar
SERVANDO SIFUENTES-BARRAZA
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, ET AL,
Respondents
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, ROBERT E JOLICOEUR,
Interim Field Office Director, Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Respondents - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CV-45-DB
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Servando Sifuentes-Barraza (Sifuentes) appeals the dismissal
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging a
removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
In accordance with the REAL ID Act, this court converts
Sifuentes’s § 2241 petition into a petition for review of the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-51202
-2-
BIA’s order. See Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 1055 (2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).
Sifuentes contends that the 1998 removal order was invalid
in light of this court’s decision in United States v. Chapa-
Garza, 243 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 2001). The 1998 removal order
became final on October 15, 1999, when the BIA dismissed
Sifuentes’s appeal and found him removable as an aggravated
felon. The final removal order was executed on August 3, 2000,
when Sifuentes was removed to Mexico. Once removed from the
country, Sifuentes’s case was effectively finished. See Navarro-
Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 675 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding
that removal proceedings are “completed and final” after a person
is actually removed pursuant to a removal order). Because
Sifuentes’s completed and final removal order had been legally
executed at the time Chapa-Garza was decided, Chapa-Garza does
not retroactively apply to Sifuentes’s removal order. See
Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th Cir.
2001) (declining to retroactively apply “to [a] prior order of
deportation a new rule that did not take effect until two-and-a-
half years after [the alien] had been deported”). Accordingly,
Sifuentes’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --