Case Name: Emiliano Argueta ALANIS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-02
Citations: 381 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 08-70370
Parties: Emiliano Argueta ALANIS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
Emiliano Argueta ALANIS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70370.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 25, 2010.
Filed June 2, 2010.
Richard Bruce Finch, Esquire, R. Bruce Finch Attorney at Law, Chico, CA, for Petitioner.
Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, Oil, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Emiliano Argueta Alanis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") summary removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
Because the DHS cancelled Alanis' removal order on May 20, 2009, there is no longer a final order of removal for this court to review. See generally 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); see also Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir.2009) ("[WJhere there is no final order of removal, this court lacks jurisdiction even where a constitutional claim or question of law is raised.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.