Case Name: Ubaldo ROMERO-OSORIO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-28
Citations: 267 F. App'x 87
Docket Number: No. 07-0003-ag
Parties: Ubaldo ROMERO-OSORIO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Present: Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Hon. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
Ubaldo ROMERO-OSORIO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-0003-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 28, 2008.
Anne Pilsbury, Central American Legal Assistance, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Petitioner.
Thomas H. Dupree, Jr. (Peter D. Keisler, James E. Grimes, Leslie McKay, of counsel) United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Present: Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Hon. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2) Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider. In re Ubaldo Romero-Osorio, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 15, 2007). After oral argument in this case, the petitioner and the government filed a joint motion to reopen with the BIA. The BIA granted the motion on February 6, 2008, reopened proceedings, changed venue to New York City, and remanded to the Immigration Judge to allow the petitioner to apply for voluntary departure. As the BIA has granted the motion to reopen, there is no longer a final order of removal for this Court to review. The petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(9); see also Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002).