N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JUAN DANIEL C ASTILLO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73005 Age n c y No. A077-992-454
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FISHER , a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . Jua n Da n i e l C a stillo pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his m otion to re c onside r its de c i sion re ve rsing the Im m i gration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) grant of a wa ive r of ina d

m issibility

an d re m an ding to the IJ for e ntry

of a re m ova l orde r. 

# FIL ED OCT 07 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W e m u st first de te rm i ne whe the r we have jurisdic tion to c onside r the pe tition. Our jurisdic

tion is lim

ite d to re vie wof a

“ fina l orde r of re m ova l,” e ve n whe re a c onstitutiona

l c la i m or que stion of la

w is ra ise d. 8 U.S.C
. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(9); Alc ala v
. Holde r , 563 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th C ir. 2009). In Abdisalan v
. Holde r , a n e n ba n c pa ne l of this C ourt re c e ntly

sought “to c la rify the issue of fina lity

of the [B IA’ s] de c isions”whe n the B IA re m ands to the IJ for furthe r proc e e dings. 774 F.3d 517, 520 (9th Ci r. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (a s am e nde d). W e c onc lude d tha t “ [w] he n the B IA re m ands to theIJ for a ny re a son, no fina l orde r of re m ova l e xists until a ll a dm i nistra

tive proc e e dings ha

ve c onc lude d.” Id. at

526. He re , the B IA re m ande d to theIJ for e ntry of a n orde r of re m o va l. Ac c ording to subm

issions from

both pa rtie s, on re m and the IJ e nte re d a n orde r of
re m ova l, pe titione r a

p pe a l e d, a

nd his c a se c urre ntly

re m a ins pe nding be fore the

2B IA. B e c a

use “ a ll a dm inistra

tive proc e e d ings” hav e not c onc lude d , “ no fina l orde r of re m ova l e x ists.” Id. W e la c k jurisdic tion. 1 The pe tition for re vie w is DISM ISSE D W IT H O UT PRE JUDICE
.

1 If re lie f is not gra

nte d in theongoing a dm inistra tive proc e e dings, a

fina l orde r of re m ova l will e xist onc e the proc e e dings ha ve c o nc lude d. W ithin 30 da y s of the c onc lusion of a dm inistra tive proc e e dings, pe titione r m ay re -file his pe tition for re vie w. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(1). Thefina l orde r will inc lude “ a ll m atte rs on whic h the va lidity

of the fina l orde r is c ontinge nt, ra t he r tha n only those de te rm i nations a c tua lly

m a de ” in the la st a g e nc y

de c i sion. I.N

.S. v . C hadha , 462 U.S. 919, 938 (1983) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). Thus, thefina l orde r will inc l ude the B IA’ s de nia l of pe titione r’ s m otion to re c onside r an d the unde rly ing de c ision. Se e Go v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (9th C ir. 2011) (a p ply ing C hadha ). 3