### F OR P UBLICATION



## UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

S U R I N D E R 

### S I N G H 

### , P etitioner
,

v

.

L O R E T T A 

### E. L Y

N C H 

### , Attorney General, Respondent

. N o. 12-74163

Ag ency No. A079-579-046

OPI NI ON

O n Petition for Review of an Order of the B oard of I

mmig ration Appeals

Submission Deferred F ebruary 3, 2016 Resubmitted September 1, 2016 * 

### Seattle, W a shing ton

F iled September 1, 2016

B e fore: Alex Koz inski, Diarmuid F . O’Scannlain, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit J udg es.

Per Curiam Opinion

* T h e p an el u n a n i m o u sl y co n clu d es th is case is su itab le f o r d ecisio n

w ith o u t o ral arg u

m en t. S ee Fed . R. A pp . P . 3 4 (a)(2 ).

### S I N G H V



### . L Y

N C H 

### 2

SUMMARY * *



### Im m igration

The panel held th at i t lacked jurisdiction to review a petition for review o f a Bo a rd of I mmig ration Appeals’ decision follow i n g r emand to an immig ration judg e for voluntary departure advisals.

I n petitioner’s first appeal to th e Board, the B oard affirmed th e I J ’s denial of asy lum, withholding of removal, and Convention Ag ainst Torture r e lief, but remanded to the I J for vol u n t a r y d e p arture advisals. Petitioner did not file a petition for review within 30 day s of that B oard decision.

On r emand, the I J ag ain g ranted voluntary departure with

an alte r n a te order of removal. Petitioner ag ain appealed the I J ’s decision to the B oard, but did not alleg e that the I J h ad made errors o f law or fact o n remand. The B oard summarily dismissed petitioner’s second appeal, declined to reinstate

v o l untary departure, and ordered petitioner removed

. Petitioner then filed a timely petition fo r review of that decision.

Apply ing Rizo v. Lynch

, 8 10 F .3d 6 88 (9th Cir. 2016), the panel held that the B oard’s decision r e m a n d i ng f or f urther proceeding s as to v o l u ntary departure did not a ffect the finality of an otherwise-final order of removal, and the I J ’s decision as to t h e merits of petitioner’s claims for relief became unreviewable upon ex piration of the 3 0 day period to

** T h is su m m ary co n stitu

t es n o p ar t o f t h e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.

### S I N G H V



### . L Y

N C H 

### 3

petition for review to this court. B ec a u s e petitioner d id not file a petition for review within that 3 0 day window, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.

COUNSEL

B art Klein, L a

w Offices o f B a

rt Klein, Seattle, Washing ton, for Petitioner.

Edward E. W i gg ers, J ennifer L

. L ig htbody and Patrick J

. Glen, Senior L itig ation Counsel; Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director; B enjamin C. Miz er, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Office of I mmig ration L itig ation, Civil Division, United States D epartment of J ustice, W as h i ng ton, D.C.; for Respondent.

OP INION

PER CURI AM:

W e must deci d e whether we have jurisdiction over a petition f o r review of a B oard of I mmig ration Appeals decision remanding to the I mmig ration J udg e solely for voluntary departure proceeding s.

I

On May 5, 2009, an I mmig r ation J u dg e (I J ) denied I ndian citiz en Surinder Sing h’s applications for asy lum, withholding of removal, a n d protection under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT). The I J g ranted Sing h vol untary departure with an a lternate order of removal to I ndia. S i ng h appealed

### S I N G H V



### . L Y

N C H 

### 4

the I J ’s decision to the B oard of I mmig ration Appeals (B I A). On J une 22, 2011, the B I A affirmed the denial of asy lum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, but rem a n d ed the
case to the I J “to provide all advisals required upon g ranting voluntary departure.” 1 

### Sing h did not file a petition to this court for review of the B I A order within 30 day s of the J u ne 2011 decision.

On remand, the I J g ave Sing h th e required a dvisals a nd
ag ain g r anted voluntary departur e w i t h an alternate order o f removal to I ndia. Sing h aga i n a p p e aled the I J ’s decision to the B I A ; he did not alleg e that the I J had made errors of law

or f act on remand. On N ovember 29, 2012, the B I A summarily di s m issed Sing h’s second appeal, declined to reinstate voluntary

departure, and ordered Sing h removed to I n d i a p ursuant to the I J ’s alternate order. On December 20, 2012, Sing h timely

filed this petition for review.

I I

Our jurisdiction to review a depo r t a t i on decision is limited to a “final o rder of rem o val.” 8 U .S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(9); Viloria v. L y n c h

, 808 F .3d 7 64, 767 (9th Cir. 2015); Alcala v. Holder

, 563 F .3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009). A petition for review “must be filed not later than 30 day s after the date of the final order of removal.” 8 U .S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. I.N.S.
, 514 U.S. 386, 4 0 5 (1995). This deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Ma g t a nong v

. Gonzales

, 4 9 4 F .3d 1190, 1 191 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

1 A n IJ w h o g ran ts v o lu n tary d ep artu re is req u ired to ad v ise an alien th at h e m u st, w ith in 30 d ay s o f f

i lin g an ap p eal w ith t

h e B IA
, su

b m i t su f f icien t p ro o f th at h e h as p o sted a v o lu n t ary dep artu re b on d w ith th e Dep artm en t

o f Ho m elan d Secu rity

. S

ee 8 C.F.R. § 1 24 0 .2 6 (c)(3 ), (3 )(ii).

### S I N G H V



### . L Y

N C H 

### 5

“A mandatory and jurisdictional r u le c a n n o t be forfeited o r waived, and courts la c k the authority to create equitable

ex c e ptions to such a rule.” I d

. ( citation omitted).

A

T he tex t o f the I mmig r ation and N ationality Act (I NA ) “does not e x plicitly define the term ‘final order o f removal.’” Shaboyan v

. Holder

, 652 F .3d 988, 990 (9th Cir. 2 0 1 1 ) ( per curiam). H owever, I NA § 101(a)(47), 8 U .S.C. § 1101( a ) ( 4 7 ), “does d efine the term ‘order of deportation’ and establishes when such an o rd er becomes final.” Shaboyan

, 652 F .3d at 990; see Antiterrorism a n d Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L

. N o. 104-132, § 440, 110 Stat. 1214. 2



### The I NA defines the term “ order o f d e p o rtation” as “the order of the [ I J 3 

### ]

. . . concluding that the alien is deportable o r orderingdeportation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A).

2 W e h av e ex

p lain ed th at, i n th i s co n tex t , “ th e term s ‘ d ep ortab le’ a n d

‘ d ep o rtatio n ’ can b e u sed in terch an g eab ly w ith th e term s ‘ rem o v ab le’ an d

‘ rem o v al,’ resp ectiv ely .” Lo lo n g v. Go n z ales

, 4 8 4 F.3 d 1 1 7 3
, 11 7 7 n .2 (9 th Cir. 20 0 7 ) (en b an c); see Illeg al Im m ig ratio n Ref

o rm an d Im

m ig ran t Resp o n sib ility A ct o f

1 9 9 6 (IIRIRA ), P u

b . L . No

. 1 0 4

- 2 0 8
, § 3 0 9 (d )(2 ), 1 1 0 S t a t

. 3 0 0 9 (“ [A ]n y ref eren ce in law to an o rd er of rem o v al sh all b e d eem ed to in clu d e a ref

eren ce to an o rd er o f ex clu sio n an d d ep o rtatio n or

an o rd er o f d ep o rtatio n .”).

3 T h e statu t e u ses t he t e r m “ sp ecial in q u iry o f f icer.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(4 7 )(A ). Reg u latio n s “ i n ef f ect at th e tim e Co n g res s p a ssed 8 U.S.C. § 11 0 1 (a)(4 7 ) d ef in ed ‘ im m ig ratio n j u dg e’ to m ean a ‘ sp ecial in q u iry o f

f icer an d m ay b e u sed in t e r c h an g eab ly w ith th e t erm sp ecial in q u iry o f f icer w h erev er it ap p ears in th is ch ap ter.’ ” Mo lin a -Ca ma ch o v. Ash cro ft

, 3 9 3 F.3 d 9 3 7
, 9 4 0 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (citin g 8 C.F.R. § 1 .1 ( l ) (1 9 9 6)), o verru l ed

o n o th er g r ou n d

s b y Lo lo ng , 4 8 4 F.3 d 1 1 7 5

.

### S I N G H V



### . L Y

N C H 

### 6

T he order described under subparag r aph (A ) shall become final upon the earlier of—

(i) a determination by t h e B oard o f I mmig r ation Appeals affirming such order; o r

(ii) the ex piration o f the p eriod in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the B oard of I

mmig ration Appeals.

Id. § 1101(a)(47)(B ). The statute does not define “ affirming such order.”

W h en the B I A affi r m s in f ull the I J ’s order of removal, that decision obviously constitutes “a determination b y t he [ B I A] affirming such order,” and is t h u s a final order o f removal. S

ee Abdisalan v. Holder

, 7 74 F .3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). However, w hen the B I A d o es not affirm in full, but rather affirms in part and remands, finality i s l e s s c lear. I n such a case, is the B I A “affirming ” the I J ’ s order of removal? The statutory tex t does not p rovide a clear

answer.

B

This question is not one of first impression for o ur court. Under Pinto v. Holder

, “the B I A’s decision deny ing asy lum, withholding of removal, and CAT p r otection but remanding
to the I J for v o luntary departure p r o c e eding s is a f inal order of removal

. . . and, effectively

, the o nly order that we can

### S I N G H V



### . L Y

N C H 

### 7

review.” 648 F .3 d 9 7 6
, 9 80 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 

### B ecause the B I A’s J une 2 0 1 1 decision remanding solely for voluntary departure proceeding s is a “final order of r e m o v a l

, ” the I J ’s order became unreviewable o n J uly 23, 2011 upon ex piration of t h e 30 day p eriod to petition for review to this court. I n lig ht of Pi n t o and consistent with the Six th and T e nth Circuits, we must conclude that w e lack jurisdiction over Sing h’s current petition. S ee Hih v

. Lynch

, 812 F .3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2016); Batubara v. Holder

, 733 F .3d 1040, 1042–43 (10th Cir. 2013).

4 A f ter Pin to w as d ecid ed

, an en b an c pan el o f o u r co u rt issu ed Ab d isa la n. Ab d i

sa la n co n clu ded t

h at, “ [w ]h en t

h e B IA rem an d s to th e IJ f o r an y rea so n, n o f

in al ord er o f rem o v al ex ists u n til all ad m in istrativ e p ro ceed in g s h av e co n clu ded .” 7 7 4 F.3 d at 5 2 6

. Ho w ev er, w e ex p licitly d eclin ed to ad d ress rem an d s f or v o lu n tary dep artu re an d d id n o t o v erru le Pin to

. S ee id

. at 5 2 6 n .8 (“ Un d er th e f

acts o f th is case, w e n eed n o t rev isit

o u r ru l e th at th e B IA ’ s d ecisio n is a f i n al o rd er o f rem o v a l w h en i t

rem an d s f

o r co n s id eratio n o f v o l u n ta r y d e p artu re b u t den ies all o th er f o rm s o f relief .”).

Reco g n izin g th at Ab d isa la n ’ s b ro ad ly stated co n clu sio n created so m e ten si o n w ith Pin to , w e o rd ered su p p lem en t al b rief

in g o n w h eth er Pin to sh o u ld be o v erru led in lig h t o f th e reaso n in g an d h o ld in g o f A b d isa la n

. W h ile t h at brief in g w as p en d in g , an o th er th ree- j u d g e p an el d ecid ed Rizo

v. L y n c h

, 8 1 0 F .3 d 6 8 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 16 )

. Rizo co n clu d ed th at “ Pin to

rem ain s th e law o f th e Circu it.” Id

. at 69 1

. C o n s eq u en tly

, th e Rizo p an el d e t erm in ed th at a “ B IA rem an d f or f u rth er p ro ceed in g s as to v o lu n ta r y d ep artu re d o es n o t af

f ect t h e fi n ality o f an o th erw ise- f in al o rd er of

r e m o v al.” Id

. at 6 9 2

. W e d irected th e p arties to ad d ress Rizo in th e i r

su p p lem en tal b rief

s. B o th th e g o v ern m en t an d Sin g h arg u ed th at Rizo w as

w ro n g ly decid ed

. A j u d g e req u ested a v o te o n w h eth er t o reh ear Rizo en b an c, b u t a m aj o rity

o f n o n recu sed activ e j u d g es d id n o t v o te in f av o r o f reh earin g en b an c. Rizo an d Pin t o th u s rem ain law o f th e circu i t, an d ou r th ree- j u d g e p an el is b o u n d to ap p ly th em f aith f u lly

.

### S I N G H V



### . L Y

N C H 

### 8

Under the circumstances, Sing h remains su bject to immediate removal to India.

DISMISSED.