Opinion ID: 165792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board's Streamlining Procedures

Text: 7 The first question before us is whether we should review the Board's decision or the IJ's decision in this case. [T]he INA grants us general jurisdiction to review a `final order of removal.' Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1347, 1353 (10th Cir.2004) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)). Because an alien facing removal may appeal to the Board as of right, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3), 1003.38(a), 1240.15, and because the Board has the power to review the IJ's legal conclusions de novo and his factual findings for clear error, see id. § 1003.1(d)(3), there is no final order until the Board acts. In light of the Board's streamlining procedures under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1, however, the Board's decision denying an alien relief from removal may constitute the final order of removal, or the Board's decision may be the agency action that makes the IJ's decision the final order of removal, Tsegay, 386 F.3d at 1353; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii). Although the IJ's decision in this case was issued before the expanded streamlining procedures were enacted on August 26, 2002, the 2002 amendment was expressly made applicable to pending cases. 67 Fed.Reg. at 54898-54899. As a result, the amended streamlining regulation governs the Board's December 10, 2003 decision.