
    Oscar Federico INFANZON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael COMFORT, Acting District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Denver District, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-1395.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Jan. 18, 2006.
    
      Patrick C. Hyde, Denver, CO, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    John W. Suthers, U.S. Attorney, Kevin T. Traskos, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for RespondentAppellee.
    Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

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.

Appellant, Oscar Infanzón 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, Infanzón 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 Infanzón the relief he sought. Infanzón filed his Motion to Reopen with the BIA on January 24, 2003 and the BIA denied the motion on May 29, 2003. Infanzón 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.

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. Infanzón filed this appeal. Because we agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to grant or deny Infanzón a stay of removal while his petition for review was pending in this court, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Infanzon’s § 2241 petition. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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.
     
      
      . This court also denied Infanzon’s petition for review. Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1363 (10th Cir.2004)
     