Case ID: f-appx_171/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hui CHI; Chunming Wang; Lu Wang, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-73884.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2006.
    
    Decided March 14, 2006.
    Kevin G. Long, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, THOMAS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hui Chi petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) reversing the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) grant of asylum and ordering removal. We lack jurisdiction over the petition for review, and transfer it to the district court as a habeas petition.

We have jurisdiction over “final order[s] of removal” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). In Molina-Camacho, we held that only an IJ, and not the BIA, can enter a “final order of removal.” 393 F.3d 937, 941-42 (9th Cir.2004). Here, the IJ granted Chi’s application for asylum. The BIA vacated the grant of asylum and ordered Chi removed. Rather than remand to the IJ for entry of a removal order, the BIA entered that order itself. The BIA acted ultra vires in issuing an order of removal in the first instance. Id. at 939. Because the BIA did not remand this matter to the IJ to issue a removal order, no valid final order of removal exists, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over this petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252; Molinar-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942.

Pursuant to the procedure adopted in Molinar-Camacho, however, we treat the petition for review as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and transfer the petition to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905, 919 (9th Cir.2004). Upon transfer, the district court should remand to the agency for further proceedings. See Molina-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942 n. 4.

PETITION TRANSFERRED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.