UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1654
AKMMAQSUDUL ALAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; JANET NAPOLITANO,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; ALEJANDRO
MAYORKAS, Director, USCIS, Department of Homeland Security
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 1, 2013 Decided: November 7, 2013
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Akmmaqsudul Alam, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. Davila, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Akmmaqsudul Alam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing in part his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order and remanding for further proceedings.
The case was remanded for consideration of Alam’s request for
withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture. We dismiss the petition without prejudice.
The Attorney General moves to dismiss the petition for
review for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final order
of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (2012), this court has
jurisdiction only over final orders of removal or deportation.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A) (2012), an “order of
deportation” is “the order of the special inquiry officer, or
other such administrative officer to whom the Attorney General
has delegated the responsibility for determining whether an
alien is deportable, concluding that the alien is deportable or
ordering deportation.” That order becomes final “upon the
earlier of (i) a determination by the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming such order; or (ii) the expiration of the
period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such
order by the Board of Immigration Appeals.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(47)(B).
2
Here, the Board remanded to the immigration judge for
consideration of Alam’s request for withholding of removal or
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Unlike a
remand for solely a voluntary departure determination or
designation of a country of removal, the remand in this case
potentially affects the underlying removal order. If Alam’s
request is granted, he will no longer be subject to removal.
Because the immigration judge is considering Alam’s
applications for relief that may directly affect whether he is
removed, the Board’s decision to remand is not a final order of
removal. See Chupina v. Holder, 570 F.3d 99, 103 (2d Cir.
2009).
Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s motion to
dismiss and dismiss the petition for review without prejudice.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3