
    Eugenio Vela LUEVANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-20418.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 15, 2003.
    Eugenio Vela Luevano, Giles W. Dalby Correctional, Post, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Howard E. Rose, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Eugenio Vela Luevano, federal prisoner number 80990-079, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition by which he challenged a 1998 removal order. Luevano is serving a 78-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, for which he was convicted on 10 April 2000.

The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction for Luevano’s § 2241 petition because: (1) Luevano is not under order of removal and therefore is not in custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and (2) Luevano did not exhaust his administrative remedies. We review de novo a district court’s rulings on jurisdiction. E.g., Zolicoffer v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 315 F.3d 538, 540 (5th Cir.2003).

Leuvano insists that he is in custody pursuant to a prior deportation order because the INS may reinstate the order of removal. Leuvano has not demonstrated error in the district court’s determination that he failed to meet the “in custody” requirement for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 jurisdiction. Our court has held: “For a court to have habeas jurisdiction under section 2241, the prisoner must be ‘in custody5 at the time he files his petition for the conviction or sentence he wishes to challenge”. Zolicoffer, 315 F.3d at 540. Luevano is in custody for the conviction on illegal reentry; he is not in custody of the INS for the purposes of challenging the order of deportation.

Finally, Luevano has abandoned the exhaustion issue by failing to adequately brief his claim that he exhausted his administrative remedies. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     