Court Opinion

ID: 9905593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 20:01:27.416648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:50.605505
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11320   Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11320
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       REYNA ELISETH VALENZUELA DE LA CRUZ,
       JEREMY DANIEL BAUTISTA VALENZUELA,
                                                               Petitioners,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A209-134-060
USCA11 Case: 23-11320      Document: 14-1       Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11320

                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              In April 2023, Reyna Valenzuela de la Cruz and her son, Jer-
       emy Bautista Valenzuela (collectively, “Petitioners”), ﬁled a petition
       for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 2023 or-
       der aﬃrming the denial of their applications for asylum, withhold-
       ing of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention
       Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treat-
       ment or Punishment. In September 2023, Petitioners ﬁled an un-
       opposed motion to dismiss their petition for lack of jurisdiction.
               Petitioners assert that, on September 1, 2023, the BIA
       granted a motion to reopen and administratively close their re-
       moval proceedings that removed from the proceedings the ﬁnality
       necessary for us to exercise jurisdiction over the instant petition for
       review.
              Although Petitioners’ removal orders were ﬁnal at the time
       they ﬁled the petition for review, the BIA’s decision to reopen and
       administratively close Petitioners’ removal proceedings rendered
       their removal orders non-ﬁnal, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction
       to consider their petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(9)
       & (d); cf. Jaernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1351-52 (11th
       Cir. 2005) (concluding that we had jurisdiction after the BIA
       granted reconsideration but explicitly upheld the earlier removal
       order).
USCA11 Case: 23-11320   Document: 14-1   Date Filed: 11/29/2023   Page: 3 of 3

       23-11320            Opinion of the Court                    3

             Accordingly, Petitioners’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED
       and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.