Case Name: Constantino Vargas BARRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 452
Docket Number: No. 05-75032
Parties: Constantino Vargas BARRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 452–452

Head Matter:
Constantino Vargas BARRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75032.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 23, 2007.
Constantino Vargas Barrera, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Patricia Caloca Vazquez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Fabiola Sarai Diaz Caloca, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Saul Diaz Caloca, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioners seek review of a 2005 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. On December 13, 2005, this court vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals' final order of removal and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings, in petition no. 05-71910. The Board issued a new final order of removal on January 31, 2007 and the petitioners have filed a timely petition for review of that order in petition no. 07-70808.
We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because it was filed before the operative final order of removal was entered. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.