
    Jean A. DORIVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-60725.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 18, 2004.
    
      Jean A Dorival, Gadsden, AL, pro se.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Edward C. Durant, John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Haitian citizen Jean Dorival filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus in district court for the Eastern District of New York challenging the Immigration Judge’s order of removal from the United States. In his petition he asserted a claim that he was a national of the United States. The district court transferred Dorival’s habeas corpus petition to this court. Dorival requests a stay of removal; that request is DENIED. The Respondent, Attorney General Ashcroft, moves for dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for summary affirmance. Ashcroft’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. Do-rival moves for leave to file an out-of-time response to Ashcroft’s motion for summary affirmance; Dorival’s motion is DENIED.

28 U.S.C. § 1631 permits a transfer if this court would have been able to exercise jurisdiction on the date that the case was filed in the district court, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case, and the transfer is in the interest of justice. Dorival filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the district court before he exhausted his administrative remedies before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Therefore, this court could not have exercised jurisdiction over the petition on the date that Dorival filed the petition in district court. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (a court may review a final order of removal only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies as of right).

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     