Case Name: Dennis Anatolyevich DEVYATOV, a.k.a. Denis A. Devyatov, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-10
Citations: 217 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 04-71811
Parties: Dennis Anatolyevich DEVYATOV, a.k.a. Denis A. Devyatov, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Dennis Anatolyevich DEVYATOV, a.k.a. Denis A. Devyatov, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71811.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued June 9, 2006.
Filed Jan. 10, 2007.
Carol L. Edward, Esq., Law Offices of Carol L. Edward, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, James E. Grimes, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This case is hereby resubmitted as of the filing date of this order.
On August 21, 2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted the parties' joint motion to reopen Petitioner's case. The BIA remanded the case to an immigration judge for new proceedings on Petitioner's adjustment of status claim, rescinding its final order of removal.
We lack jurisdiction over this case under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction when BIA reopened case and remanded to immigration judge for new proceedings).
Respondent's unopposed motion of November 13, 2006 is hereby granted. This appeal is DISMISSED and the mandate shall issue forthwith.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.