Case Name: Istvan KELE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-25
Citations: 371 F. App'x 874
Docket Number: No. 04-73836
Parties: Istvan KELE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 874–875

Head Matter:
Istvan KELE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73836.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 25, 2010.
Istvan Kele, Budapest, Hungary, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Nor-wood, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Istvan Kele, a native and citizen of Hungary, petitions pro se for review of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's decision to reinstate his prior removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
After Kele filed the instant petition for review, an immigration judge entered a removal order against him pursuant to a new Notice to Appear. Kele waived appeal of that order and was removed to Hungary. Kele's superseding removal order renders this petition for review moot.
We deny Kele's request in his February 23, 2005, letter to order the government to submit documents pertaining to his underlying deportation proceedings because this petition for review is not timely as to those proceedings. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
We deny Kele's January 1, 2010, motion for an expedited decision as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.