Ghotra

dissenting, writing separately:

In this case, the district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain Ghotra’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (REAL ID Act). I write separately to highlight this important fact overlooked by the majority’s disposition.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5), (b)(9) strips the district court of jurisdiction over habe-as claims that seek to review a final order of removal. Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir.2007). There, we held that despite these jurisdiction-stripping provisions, the REAL ID Act did not preclude an ineffective assistance claim arising from a lawyer’s alleged failure to file a timely petition for review of a Board decision. We reasoned that such a claim “cannot be construed as seeking judicial review of [a] final order of removal” because the petitioner’s “only remedy would be the restarting of the thirty-day period for the filing of a petition for review with this court. In other words, a successful habeas petition in this case will lead to nothing more than ‘a day in court’ for [the petitioner] ... ” Id. at 979 (emphasis added). Thus, we concluded…

MEMORANDUM *

Navneet Ghotra appeals from the district court’s ruling denying'her petition for habeas corpus. Ghotra claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in her appeal before this court. See Ghotra v. Ashcroft, 114 Fed.Appx. 957 (9th Cir.2004). Ghotra sought two forms of relief in her habeas case: (1) that the district court order this court to accept an appeal despite our prior order barring her from further filings and (2) that the district court order the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to reissue its final order, restarting the period to file an appeal in this court.

Because the district court did not have the power to order this court to accept an appeal, Ghotra’s first claim for relief lacks an essential element of standing — redressibility. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 , 102 S.Ct. 752 , 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). Because the remedy she sought is unavailable, Ghotra’s first claim for relief fails.

The district court could have, however, ordered the BIA to reissue its final *605 order. See Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir.2007). Because she failed to file a…