
    Alex Kojo BLANKSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General; John Sourkaris, Director Post Order Detention Unit, U.S. (ICE); Nuria Prendes, Director of Detention and Field Operations Dallas, Texas (ICE); Jill Watson, Warden of RPRDC, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 07-10219
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 14, 2008.
    Alex Kojo Blankson, Haskell, TX, pro se.
    Edwin Scott Frost, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, James Patrick Laurence, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Respondents-Appellees.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alex Kojo Blankson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition on the grounds that his detention by the Department of Homeland Security/Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS) is unconstitutional in light of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).

The district court noted that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) provides that the removal period shall be extended if the alien fails or refuses to make a good faith effort to obtain a travel document or acts to prevent his removal and concluded that Blankson’s own actions and conflicting claims of citizenship hampered the DHS’s ability to effectuate his removal. The district court also found that Blankson failed to show that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.

The district court did not err in denying the petition. Blankson’s frequently changing claims of citizenship hampered the DHS’s ability to effectuate removal and, under § 1231(a)(1)(C), has served to extend the removal period of § 1231(a)(1)(A). See Balogun v. INS, 9 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir.1993). Blankson has failed to show that under the circumstances his continued detention violates his constitutional rights and that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED; Blankson’s motion to enter exhibit lists is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     