Summary
explaining that "explicit vacatur of a prior decision by the BIA divests this court of jurisdiction"
Summary of this case from Linyi Zheng v. BarrOpinion
No. 18-60106
03-04-2019
TANG CHEN, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Summary Calendar Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. --------
Tang Chen timely petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision to deny relief. After this appeal was filed, the BIA entered an order vacating its prior decision and substituting a new decision which did not alter the outcome or reasoning. No subsequent petition for review was filed.
We requested supplemental briefing on our jurisdiction in light of this event. Having considered that briefing and the applicable law, we conclude that an explicit vacatur of a prior decision by the BIA divests this court of jurisdiction. Espinal v. Holder, 636 F.3d 703, 705-06 (5th Cir. 2011). Because Chen did not file a timely petition for review of the new BIA order, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Moreira v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 709, 713 (5th Cir. 2007).
DISMISSED.