Case Name: Ana Bertha MENDEZ, aka Ana Bertha Gutierre Cervantes, aka Veronica Cervantes Ruiz, aka Claudia Dinhorah Lopez Caro, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-18
Citations: 648 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 13-70508
Parties: Ana Bertha MENDEZ, aka Ana Bertha Gutierre Cervantes, aka Veronica Cervantes Ruiz, aka Claudia Dinhorah Lopez Caro, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
Ana Bertha MENDEZ, aka Ana Bertha Gutierre Cervantes, aka Veronica Cervantes Ruiz, aka Claudia Dinhorah Lopez Caro, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70508.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 18, 2016.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Edward C. Durant, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, 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
Ana Bertha Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision terminating her removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
Because an order terminating removal proceedings is not a final order of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mendez's petition for review. See Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1013-16 (9th Cir.2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) ("Judicial review of all questions of law and fact . shall be available only in judicial review of a final order [of removal].").
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Mendez's request for remand to apply for relief from removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.