Deon Earl Daley v. U.s. Department of Homeland Security

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4266
DEON EARL DALEY,
Appellant
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;
THOMAS V. DURAN
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-01443)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
MARCH 19, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Opinion filed March 31, 2008)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Deon Earl Daley appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his petition
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The procedural history of this case and the details of

-- 1 of 2 --

On January 8, 2008, this Court denied Daley’s petition for review of his removal1
order. See Daley v. Attorney Gen., No. 07-3295, 2008 WL 73688 (3d Cir. Jan. 8, 2008).
Thus, the District Court’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, rather than transfer
the matter to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, was entirely appropriate.
2
Daley’s claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough
order, and need not be discussed at length. Daley, a citizen of Jamaica, filed a § 2241
petition challenging his removal order and his continued detention. The District Court
dismissed the petition. Daley filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d
Cir. 2002). We agree with the District Court that it did not have jurisdiction over Daley’s
challenge to his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). As for Daley’s challenge to1
his detention, he was still within the presumptively reasonable six-month post-removal
period at the time of the District Court’s order. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701
(2001).
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
affirm the District Court’s October 29, 2007 order. Daley’s motion to dismiss is denied.

-- 2 of 2 --