Case Name: Mauricio SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-07
Citations: 452 F. App'x 803
Docket Number: No. 09-71313
Parties: Mauricio SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 803–803

Head Matter:
Mauricio SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71313.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 7, 2011.
Brenda Carolina Diaz, Esquire, Phung Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Kathryn McKinney, Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, 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
Mauricio Santos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1082-83 (9th Cir.2008).
In his opening brief, Santos states he has been removed. We lack jurisdiction over the petition for review because Santos' CAT claim is moot, due to Santos having been removed to Guatemala. See Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 959 (9th Cir.2009) ("[W]e cannot give [the petitioner] any relief with respect to withholding because he has already been deported and he suffers no collateral consequence from the withholding decision. There is simply no live controversy."). Therefore, we dismiss the petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.