Case ID: f-appx_86/html/0307-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marcello Paiva DOS ANJOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71262.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    
    Decided Jan. 16, 2004.
    Sandra A. Ronald, Attorney at Law, Calabasas, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Jennifer Paisner, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marcello Paiva Dos Anjos, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and granting his motion to reopen to apply for relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Only final orders of removal are subject to direct review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (order). Because the BIA granted Dos Anjos’s motion to reopen, there is no longer a final order to review. See id. Accordingly, Dos Anjos’s petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.