Filed: Jan. 18, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 18, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court OSCAR FEDERICO INFANZON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 04-1395 MICHAEL COMFORT, Acting (District of Colorado) District Director, Immigration and (D.C. No. 03-M-102) Naturalization Service, Denver District, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. After exami
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 18, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court OSCAR FEDERICO INFANZON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 04-1395 MICHAEL COMFORT, Acting (District of Colorado) District Director, Immigration and (D.C. No. 03-M-102) Naturalization Service, Denver District, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. After examin..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 18, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
OSCAR FEDERICO INFANZON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 04-1395
MICHAEL COMFORT, Acting (District of Colorado)
District Director, Immigration and (D.C. No. 03-M-102)
Naturalization Service, Denver
District, Executive Office for
Immigration Review,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this court has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Accordingly, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Appellant, Oscar Infanzon filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado. In the application, Infanzon asked the district court to stay his
removal to Peru until he could pursue a motion to reopen his removal
proceedings with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The district court
granted Infanzon the relief he sought. Infanzon filed his Motion to Reopen with
the BIA on January 24, 2003 and the BIA denied the motion on May 29, 2003.
Infanzon filed a petition for review in this court together with a motion seeking a
stay of removal while his petition was pending. We denied the motion seeking a
stay of removal on October 29, 2003. 1
On September 21, 2004, the district court vacated its stay of removal and
dismissed Infanzon’s § 2241 petition on the ground that this court had exclusive
jurisdiction. Infanzon filed this appeal. Because we agree with the district court
that it lacked jurisdiction to grant or deny Infanzon a stay of removal while his
1
This court also denied Infanzon’s petition for review. Infanzon v.
Ashcroft ,
386 F.3d 1359, 1363-65 (10th Cir. 2004)
-2-
petition for review was pending in this court, we affirm the district court’s order
dismissing Infanzon’s § 2241 petition.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-