Case Name: Belinda JARAMILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-31
Citations: 554 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 08-71302
Parties: Belinda JARAMILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 585–585

Head Matter:
Belinda JARAMILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71302.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 2013.
Deferred Feb. 28, 2013.
Filed Jan. 31, 2014.
Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar A Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Susan Bennett Green, Trial, Oil, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This ease is resubmitted effective as of the file date of this order.
On January 23, 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals responded by granting Jaramillo's motion to remand to the Immigration Judge for consideration of new evidence and for a new decision. In light of the Board's remand for further proceedings and a new decision on the issue of whether Jaramillo was coerced into providing information regarding alleged alien smuggling, there is no longer a final order of removal in this case, and this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the petition for review. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002). Therefore, Respondent's request to dismiss the petition for review is hereby GRANTED.
This order shall act as and for the mandate of this court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.