Case Name: Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-11
Citations: 125 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 03-73272
Parties: Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73272.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 11, 2005.
Garish Sarin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kulwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of her motion to reopen proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review. The immigration judge discharged the order to show cause and terminated the underlying deportation proceedings. Therefore, there is no final order of deportation, and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a); Kuh v. INS, 758 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985) (order rescinding permanent resident status not reviewable until final order of deportation entered).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.