Case Name: Alma Rosa NAVARRETE PRADO, a.k.a. Alma Rosa Navareete Prado, a.k.a. Alma Rosa Navarrete-Prado, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-02
Citations: 474 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 08-72202
Parties: Alma Rosa NAVARRETE PRADO, a.k.a. Alma Rosa Navareete Prado, a.k.a. Alma Rosa Navarrete-Prado, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
Alma Rosa NAVARRETE PRADO, a.k.a. Alma Rosa Navareete Prado, a.k.a. Alma Rosa Navarrete-Prado, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72202.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 2, 2012.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, William Charles Peachey, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alma Rosa Navarrete Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her 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 a final order of removal, we lack jurisdiction over Navarrete Prado'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].").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.