Court Opinion

ID: 9396413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 16:01:05.018142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.768058
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10846   Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 05/22/2023    Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10846
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       VILMA CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ-URBINA,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A206-794-237
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10846      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 05/22/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10846

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
       jurisdictional questions, the government’s motion to dismiss the
       petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and this
       petition for review is DISMISSED. Vilma Rodriguez-Urbina seeks
       review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sum-
       marily dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) in
       absentia removal order for lack of jurisdiction. In that order, the
       BIA explained that she needed to file a motion to reopen and re-
       scind with the IJ and invited her to do so. Accordingly, the BIA’s
       order summarily dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction is not
       a final order of removal. See INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1);
       Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005)
       (explaining that, in immigration cases, we have jurisdiction to re-
       view only final orders of removal); Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 828,
       831 n.2 (holding that a BIA order recognizing the need for or invit-
       ing further administrative proceedings is not final until the alien has
       exhausted those further administrative remedies), rev’d on other
       grounds, 386 F.3d 1022, 1024 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (incor-
       porating the jurisdictional opinion and holding from the prior
       panel).
              Additionally, Rodriguez-Urbina seeks review of the BIA’s
       order denying her motion to reopen or reconsider its dismissal or-
       der. The BIA’s dismissal order, however, did not order Rodriguez-
USCA11 Case: 23-10846      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 05/22/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10846               Opinion of the Court                          3

       Urbina’s removal, and the BIA did not exercise jurisdiction to re-
       view the IJ’s in absentia removal order. See INA §§ 101(a)(47)(A),
       240(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(A), 1229a(c)(1)(A); Patel v. U.S.
       Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1272 n.16 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining that
       final orders of removal encompass rulings made by the IJ or BIA
       that affect the validity of the final order of removal). Accordingly,
       Rodriguez-Urbina’s motion to reopen or reconsider, which argued
       the BIA erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, did not seek to reopen
       or reconsider a final order of removal, and we lack jurisdiction to
       review the BIA’s order denying that motion. See Patel v. U.S. Att’y
       Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the juris-
       dictional grant in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) implicitly provides courts
       with jurisdiction to review the denials of motions to reopen or re-
       consider final orders of removal).