USCA11 Case: 23-11320 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11320 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ REYNA ELISETH VALENZUELA DE LA CRUZ, JEREMY DANIEL BAUTISTA VALENZUELA, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209-134-060 USCA11 Case: 23-11320 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11320 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: In April 2023, Reyna Valenzuela de la Cruz and her son, Jer- emy Bautista Valenzuela (collectively, “Petitioners”), filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 2023 or- der affirming the denial of their applications for asylum, withhold- ing of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treat- ment or Punishment. In September 2023, Petitioners filed an un- opposed motion to dismiss their petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners assert that, on September 1, 2023, the BIA granted a motion to reopen and administratively close their re- moval proceedings that removed from the proceedings the finality necessary for us to exercise jurisdiction over the instant petition for review.

Although Petitioners’ removal orders were final at the time they filed the petition for review, the BIA’s decision to reopen and administratively close Petitioners’ removal proceedings rendered their removal orders non-final, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction to consider their petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(9) & (d); cf. Jaernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that we had jurisdiction after the BIA granted reconsideration but explicitly upheld the earlier removal order).

USCA11 Case: 23-11320 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 3 of 3

23-11320 Opinion of the Court 3 Accordingly, Petitioners’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.