Luis-Feliz v. Atty Gen USA
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Carlos Angel Luis-Feliz seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) vacating and remanding a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ ordered these proceedings terminated after concluding that Luis-Feliz was a United States citizen. Because the BIA disagreed with that assessment, it remanded to the IJ for a removability determination. This petition followed. Because we write for the parties, we do not set out the facts. We will dismiss this petition for want of jurisdiction.
I.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we have jurisdiction to review only a final order of removal. See Popal v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 249, 252 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2005). An “order of removal” is a determination that an alien is removable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A) (defining the term “order of deportation”); Avila-Macias v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 108, 111-12 (3d Cir. 2003) (concluding that there is no difference between “removal” and “deportation”). That order becomes final when the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision or *397 when the time for appeal to the BIA expires. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B).
II.
The BIA has decided that Luis-Feliz is an alien, but neither it nor the IJ has yet determined that he is removable. As such, there is no order of removal (much less a final one) before us, and we lack jurisdiction to hear this petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order).
III.
For this reason, we must dismiss LuisFeliz’s petition for review without prejudice.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Carlos Angel LUIS-FELIZ, Petitioner v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents, (Amended Pursuant to Rule 43(c), Fed. R.App. Pro.)
- Status
- Unpublished