FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIHAI NICUSOR-REMUS, AKA Denis No. 15-70588 Philip Florance, Petitioner, Agency No. A095-441-678 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, OPINION Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 10, 2018 Seattle, Washington Filed August 8, 2018 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and John R. Tunheim, Chief District Judge.* Opinion by Chief District Judge Tunheim * The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 2 NICUSOR-REMUS V. SESSIONS SUMMARY** Immigration The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Mihai Nicusor-Remus’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions denying his motion to terminate asylum-only proceedings and denying his application for asylum. Nicusor entered the United States in 2000 pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program (“VWP”). After an arrest for credit card fraud in 2002, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a Notice of Intent to Deport, which concluded that Nicusor was removable and had waived his right to contest his removability as a VWP entrant. As part of his plea agreement in the credit card prosecution, Nicusor agreed to testify against his co-conspirators, in exchange for help resolving his immigration status. In 2004, an FBI agent and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent escorted Nicusor across the border into Mexico, whereupon he was immediately issued an I-94 Departure Record, paroling him into the United States for “significant public interest,” so he could testify against his co-conspirators. In 2012, after Nicusor’s parole had expired, the Department of Homeland Security took Nicusor into custody pursuant to the 2002 removal order, after which Nicusor requested asylum, was placed in asylum-only proceedings, and denied asylum relief. Nicusor now seeks review of the denial of his motion to ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. NICUSOR-REMUS V. SESSIONS 3 terminate asylum-only proceedings and the denial of asylum relief. The panel held that there was no final order of removal over which it had jurisdiction. The panel considered two possible decisions that could confer jurisdiction: (1) Nicusor’s 2002 removal order and (2) the Board’s order denying Nicusor’s asylum application in the asylum-only proceeding. The panel held that the 2002 Notice of Intent to Deport constituted a final order of removal for purposes of determining jurisdiction. The panel explained that the 2002 order could form the basis for jurisdiction over the Board’s orders denying the motion to terminate asylum-only proceedings and denying asylum relief only if DHS properly placed Nicusor in asylum-only proceedings. The panel further explained that asylum-only proceedings were appropriate only if the 2002 order had not been executed. The panel rejected Nicusor’s argument that the denial of his asylum application in asylum-only proceedings constituted a final order of removal. The panel explained that although asylum-only proceedings may ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals