Case ID: f-appx_293/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Luis GARCIA, aka Jose Luis Garcia Morales, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76421.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 19, 2008.
    Alan R. Diamante, Law Offices of Alan R. Diamante, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Saul Greenstein, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) November 15, 2004 order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision granting Garcia’s application for relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We dismiss the petition for review.

On February 9, 2005, the BIA reopened proceedings sua sponte and remanded to the IJ for the entry of a final order of removal pursuant to Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937 (9th Cir.2004), overruled by Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Because the November 15, 2004 order is no longer a final order of removal, we lack jurisdiction over the petition for review. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.