Case Name: Noe David AGUILAR-MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-25
Citations: 444 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: No. 10-71614
Parties: Noe David AGUILAR-MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 991–991

Head Matter:
Noe David AGUILAR-MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71614.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 25, 2011.
Noe David Aguilar-Marquez, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Noe David Aguilar-Marquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and granting his motion to remand. We dismiss the petition for review.
Because the BIA granted Aguilar-Marquez's motion to remand to apply for relief under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act, there is no final order of removal for this court to review. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (order). We therefore lack jurisdiction over this petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
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.