
    Usman Malik MANSOOR, Petitioner v. Alberto R GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60668.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 7, 2006.
    Nicolas Chavez, Chavez & Gallagher, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Edward C. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Usman Malik Mansoor petitions for review of a May 11, 2005, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen. On July 8, 2005, Mansoor filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking to enjoin his removal. The district court transferred the action to this court under the authority of the Real ID Act. See Real ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 302-11 (May 11, 2005). The Real ID Act instructs district courts to transfer to the appropriate courts of appeals all § 2241 petitions challenging final orders of removal, deportation, or exclusion “pending in a district court on the date of the enactment of the Act,” May 11, 2005. 119 Stat. 231, 311. Because Mansoor’s § 2241 petition was not pending in the district court on May 11, 2005, the district court’s transfer of the case to this court under the REAL ID Act was improper.

We lack jurisdiction over the petition for review because it was not filed within 30 days of the BIA’s order denying Mansoor’s motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Consequently, Mansoor’s petition for review is DISMISSED FOR WANT 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     