Case ID: f-appx_376/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mambu Jusu KOROMA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-60233
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 29, 2010.
    Labi Akere, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    Kathryn M. McKinney, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The petition for rehearing is DENIED. We withdraw our previous opinion, Koroma v. Holder, No. 09-60233, 2010 WL 597404 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2010) (per cu-riam), and substitute the following:

* * :|:

Mambu Jusu Koroma, a citizen of Sierra Leone, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) March 5, 2009 order, dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) June 7, 2006 decision denying Koroma’s motion to terminate removal proceedings and ordering him removed.

Koroma separately filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, and on December 7, 2009, the BIA granted the motion. The BIA remanded the case to an IJ for further proceedings. Counsel did not inform the Court of these developments in Koro-ma’s case and we proceeded to the merits of Koroma’s petition for review of the March 5th BIA order.

The BIA’s decision to reopen Koroma’s removal proceedings deprives us of jurisdiction over his petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (limiting this Court’s jurisdiction to “final order[s] of removal”); see also Moreira v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 709, 712-14 (5th Cir.2007) (declining to “construe[ ] [the alien’s petition] as requesting review of the BIA’s eventual dismissal of his appeal” and dismissing the petition absent a final order of removal). Therefore, we DISMISS Koroma’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.