MEMORANDUM **

While the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) to review the denial of Orozco-Solis' naturalization *770application, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the merits of Orozco-Solis’ removal order. Only the courts of appeals can directly review final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). The district court’s jurisdiction to review denials of naturalization applications does not encompass the authority to review orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c); see Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the district court’s order purporting to reverse the immigration judge is vacated.

Section 1429 of Title 8 did not divest the district court of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction stripping statutes are interpreted narrowly. Ana Intern., Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d 886, 894 (9th Cir. 2004). Because 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) plainly confers jurisdiction, and the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 does not mandate jurisdiction-stripping, section 1429 did not strip the district court of its jurisdiction under section 1421(c). See Bellajaro, 378 F.3d at 1047. However, because Orozco-Solis was in removal proceedings at the time the INS issued its decision, the district court should have affirmed the INS’ denial of his naturalization application. See id.

REVERSED.