Court Opinion

ID: 9951609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 15:02:18.1318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:49.093150
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13000   Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024    Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13000
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       XIU YING LIEU,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A076-999-989
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13000      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13000

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               In September 2023, Xiu Ying Lieu ﬁled a petition for review
       of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 2023 order denying
       her motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings. In Jan-
       uary 2024, Lieu ﬁled an unopposed motion to dismiss her petition
       for lack of jurisdiction. Lieu asserts that the BIA granted a motion
       to reopen and dismiss her removal proceedings, meaning that she
       is no longer the subject of a ﬁnal removal order.
               Although Lieu’s removal order was ﬁnal at the time she ﬁled
       the instant petition for review, the BIA’s decision to reopen and dis-
       miss her removal proceedings rendered her removal order non-ﬁ-
       nal, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction to consider the 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 ex-
       plicitly upheld the earlier removal order).
             Accordingly, Lieu’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this
       appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.