Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Santiago ISAIS-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-74040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 6, 2011.
    Leah Luisa Tuisavalalo, Yarra, Kharazi & Associates, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santiago Isais-Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting the government’s motion to terminate removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

Because an order terminating removal proceedings is not an order of removal, we lack jurisdiction over Isais-Padilla’s petition for review. See Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (“Judicial review of all questions of law and fact ... shall be available only in judicial review of a final order [of removal].”).

To the extent Isais-Padilla contends that the court should exercise jurisdiction over his 1998 expedited removal order, this contention fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i), (e)(2) (judicial review of an expedited removal order is restricted to limited habeas review before the district court); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004).

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