United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
L. RUSSELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
this Court is Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner, a
citizen of Ghana, seeks to block his removal from the United
States. But petitions brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 are “not the proper vehicle to
challenge an alien's removal.” Ong Vue v.
Allbaugh, 682 Fed.Appx. 636, 639 (10th Cir. 2017).
Rather, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), “a petition
for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . .
shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of
an order of removal.”
Court must determine which court of appeals is
“appropriate” here. Under the statute, a
“petition for review shall be filed with the court of
appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration
judge completed the proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(2). Where, as here, “a hearing takes
place telephonically or by videoconference, ” the Tenth
Circuit has followed the guidance of “an internal
memorandum issued by the Office of the Chief Immigration
Judge” in determining where proceedings were completed.
See Vargas v. Sessions, 680 Fed.Appx. 681, 684 (10th
Cir. 2017) (citing Medina-Rosales v. Holder, 778
F.3d 1140, 1143 (10th Cir. 2015)); see also Doc.
1-15, at 2 n.1. Pertinently, this memorandum designates
“the location where the case is docketed for
hearing” as “the hearing location.”
Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and
decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) notes that Petitioner's removal
proceedings “were completed at the Daniel L.
Moss Criminal Justice Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, ”
though the Immigration Judge “conducted the hearings .
. . remotely from the Immigration Court in Dallas, Texas, via
video teleconference.” Doc. 1-15, at 2 n.1 (emphasis
added). Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as Petitioner's
hearing location-where the proceedings were completed-was
Tulsa, Oklahoma. See Vargas, 680 Fed.Appx. at 684
(finding venue proper in the Tenth Circuit where petitioner
was physically present in New Mexico, but immigration judge
held videoconference from El Paso, Texas); cf.
Medina-Rosales, 778 F.3d at 1143 (where petitioner was
physically present in Tulsa, Oklahoma, “[t]he
[immigration judge's] presence in Dallas and the fact
that proceedings were conducted by video conference did not
change the place of the hearings from Tulsa to
concluded that the Tenth Circuit-and not the Western District
of Oklahoma-is the proper venue for Petitioner's appeal,
the Court may cure Petitioner's venue error by resorting
to the transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, “which
permits a court to transfer a case to a court that would have
had jurisdiction on the date when the action was filed, where
the transferring court lacks jurisdiction over the case in
question, and where such a transfer would be in the interest
of justice.” Berrum-Garcia v. Comfort, 390
F.3d 1158, 1162-63 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing
Duran-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1158, 1162
(10th Cir. 2003).Accordingly, the clerk of court is directed
to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.
 The United States Immigration Court in
Dallas, Texas, ordered Petitioner removed from the United
States on October 9, 2018. See Doc. 1-12. The Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the
immigration court's decision and dismissed
Petitioner's appeal on March 14, 2019. See Doc.
 Section 1252(b)(2) is “a
non-jurisdictional venue provision.” Lee v.
Lynch, 791 F.3d 1261, 1263 (10th Cir. 2015).
 The Petitioner's filings indicate
he has exhausted his administrative remedies, which is
necessary if the Tenth Circuit is to have jurisdiction.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also
Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116, 1118-19 (10th Cir
 In light of this case's transfer,
the Court declines to consider Petitioner's Motion for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). This
pending motion, along with the entire case, shall be
transferred to the ...