FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 09 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTIAN OLMOS VASQUEZ, AKA No. 14-72966 Vanessa Olmos Vasquez, Agency No. A205-128-698 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 6, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Petitioner Vanessa Olmos Vasquez (Olmos) seeks review of a final administrative removal order that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued but subsequently cancelled. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), we have jurisdiction to review only “a final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see also Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“[O]ur jurisdiction is limited to the review of final orders of removal . . . .”). Because DHS canceled the final administrative removal order it issued to Olmos, there is no longer a final order of removal for this court to review. See Lopez–Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order). To the extent the record leaves any room for doubt about whether DHS’s cancellation was effective, we rely on the government’s representations that “Olmos is no longer subject to any final order of removal” and that DHS does not “have any intention of bringing new removal charges” against her. We reject outright Olmos’s reliance on distinguishable case law to argue that we may exercise jurisdiction because the canceled order remains “tantamount to a final order.” Both Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2012), and Lolong demonstrate fidelity to the INA’s jurisdictional scheme, and neither case “broadly construe[s]” the basis for our jurisdiction in the manner Olmos suggests. 2 Petition for review DISMISSED. 3 14-72966 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Christian Olmos Vasquez v. Jefferson Sessions, III 9 August 2018 Agency Unpublished 63c16c17ac32483a85aec598c7198cf383196db6
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals