Case Name: Onyemaechi Aluma NKELE; Ihuoma Nkele; Kamalu Ezinna Wuike Nkele, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-13
Citations: 128 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 03-73443
Parties: Onyemaechi Aluma NKELE; Ihuoma Nkele; Kamalu Ezinna Wuike Nkele, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
Onyemaechi Aluma NKELE; Ihuoma Nkele; Kamalu Ezinna Wuike Nkele, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73443.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 13, 2005.
Orna Nene Nkele, Esq., Law Office of Oma Nkele, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., Janice K Redfern, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Onyemaechi Aluma Knele and his family, natives and citizens of Nigeria, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision (1) vacating an immigration judge's decision granting cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding of removal and (2) ordering them removed if they did not voluntarily depart. The Board acted ultra vires in issuing a removal order instead of remanding to the immigration judge, and so there is no final order of removal providing this court with jurisdiction. See Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937, 941 (9th Cir.2004); Salvatierra-Cermeno v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2005). We therefore treat the petition for review as a petition for habeas corpus and order it transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Upon transfer, the Rneles may make any necessary amendments to perfect the form of the petition. We note that this decision will in no way inhibit full judicial review of their claims. See Molina-Camacho, 393 F.3d at 942 n. 4. The district court should remand to the immigration judge for further proceedings. See id.
TRANSFERRED.
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.