
    Gabriel ARVAYO MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70210.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 9, 2005.
    
    Decided May 16, 2005.
    
      Marshall G. Whitehead, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Office of The District Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the'United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gabriel Arvayo-Martinez and his wife Maria De Rosario Ruiz-Canizalez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) sustaining the appeal of the Department of Homeland Security from the immigration judge’s decision which had granted petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal, and ordering the petitioners’ removal.

The BIA had no authority to issue an order removing petitioners to Mexico. See Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937, 941 (9th Cir.2004). However, because 8 U.S.C. § 1252 gives us jurisdiction to review only final orders of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ petition for review. We therefore treat the petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and transfer it to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Molina-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942. Upon transfer, petitioners may make any necessary amendments to perfect the form of the petition. ‘We note that this decision will in no way inhibit full judicial review of [petitioners’] claim regarding cancellation of removal, [and] the district court should remand to the IJ for further proceedings.” Id., f.n. 4.

TRANSFERRED. 
      
       Tjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     