Case Name: Nikita Andrevich SAMODUMOV; Andrey Andrevich Samodumov, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-05
Citations: 110 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 03-60862
Parties: Nikita Andrevich SAMODUMOV; Andrey Andrevich Samodumov, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
Nikita Andrevich SAMODUMOV; Andrey Andrevich Samodumov, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60862.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 5, 2004.
Nikita Andrevich Samodumov, Tindall & Foster, Houston, TX, pro se.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Shelley R. Goad, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Caryl G. Thompson, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, we review the Board of Immigration Appeals' (hereinafter, "BIA") decision to dismiss Petitioners, Nikita and Audrey Samodumov's, appeals and the BIA's denial of the Samodumovs' motions to remand.
Nikita and Audrey Samodumov, natives and citizens of Russia, argue that either the Immigration Judge or the BIA should have reopened their case and remanded it to the District Director because only the District Director has jurisdiction to adjudicate their pending application for adjustment of status.
This court recently held that because no meaningful standard exists against which to judge an Immigration Judge's decision to exercise sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to review a decision not to reopen deportation proceedings. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir.2004) (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)).
Therefore, the Samodumovs' petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.