Opinion
No. 11-73632 Agency No. A073-391-400 No. 12-70571
04-18-2014
EDUARDO CORONADO-OLEA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 10, 2014
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Coronado-Olea petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") reinstatement of a prior order of removal. Following Coronado-Olea's petition for review but prior to the submission of this case, the government vacated and rescinded its decision to reinstate the prior order of removal. It has since filed a superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, notified Coronado-Olea's counsel of the vacatur of the reinstatement decision, and served notice on the head of the facility in which Coronado-Olea is currently detained. Consequently, no reviewable final order of removal exists, and we lack jurisdiction to consider Coronado-Olea's petitions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (g); see also Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 2012) ("The carefully crafted congressional scheme governing review of decisions of the BIA limits this court's jurisdiction to the review of final orders of removal, even where a constitutional claim or question of law is raised." (quoting Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Although Coronado-Olea argues to the contrary, we do not find it problematic that the superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order lacks a signature in the decisional portion of the form. This simply signals DHS's intent to reinstate the prior order of removal without indicating a decision on the matter. Moreover, Coronado-Olea cites no case law for the proposition that the superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order must be final in order to vacate the prior order of removal.
--------
DISMISSED.