habeas relief, and Lopez was deported to Guatemala once again on February 28, 2002. Lopez now appeals the denial of his habeas petition. II. A. Jurisdiction The INS asserts that we lack jurisdiction to address this appeal. The INS argues that Lopez cannot satisfy the “in custody” requirement under habeas corpus jurisprudence. Alternatively, the INS asserts that a final order of removal or its reinstatement may be challenged only in the appropriate court of appeals through a petition for review filed within thirty days of the date of the order. We first note that the “in custody” requirement of the habeas statute is satisfied as long as the petitioner was in custody at the time he filed his habeas petition. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238-40, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968) (<HOLDING>); Beets v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 164 F.3d
holding petitioner not entitled to habeas relief on claim state court improperly used petitioners prior federal offense to enhance punishment holding habeas petitioners may show cause for such default in specific circumstances in states that require petitioners to raise iatc claims in initial state habeas proceedings rather than on direct appeal holding that the federal role in reviewing an application for habeas corpus is limited to evaluating what occurred in the state or federal proceedings that actually led to the petitioners conviction what occurred in the petitioners collateral proceeding does not enter into the habeas proceeding holding that once federal jurisdiction has attached it is not defeated by the petitioners release prior to completion of the proceedings on his habeas application holding that a federal district court has jurisdiction to stay an execution prior to the filing of a formal habeas corpus petition