Court Opinion

ID: 36606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:42:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:19.798548
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                             Fifth Circuit
                                                            F I L E D
                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 October 5, 2004

                    _________________________            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                 Clerk
                           No. 03-60862
                         Summary Calendar
                    _________________________

NIKITA ANDREVICH SAMODUMOV;
ANDREY ANDREVICH SAMODUMOV,

               Petitioners,

     v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

               Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

             Petition for Review of an Order of the
                   Board of Immigration Appeals
                        BIA No. A73-113-707
                        BIA No. A73-113-708
_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     In this appeal, we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(hereinafter, “BIA”) decision to dismiss Petitioners, Nikita and

Andrey Samodumov’s, appeals and the BIA’s denial of the

Samodumovs’ motions to remand.

     *
     Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

                                 -1-
     Nikita and Andrey Samodumov, natives and citizens of Russia,

argue that either the Immigration Judge or the BIA should have

reopened their case and remanded it to the District Director

because only the District Director has jurisdiction to adjudicate

their pending application for adjustment of status.

     This court recently held that because no meaningful standard

exists against which to judge an Immigration Judge’s decision to

exercise sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings,

we lack jurisdiction to review a decision not to reopen

deportation proceedings.   See Enrique-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S.

821, 830 (1985)).

     Therefore, the Samodumovs’ petition for review is DENIED.

                                -2-