Eduardo Coronado-Olea v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

EDUARDO CORONADO-OLEA, No. 11-73632

Petitioner, Agency No. A073-391-400

v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

EDUARDO CORONADO-OLEA, No. 12-70571

Petitioner, Agency No. A073-391-400

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
 Submitted April 10, 2014**
San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Eduardo Coronado-Olea petitions for review of the Department of

Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) reinstatement of a prior order of removal.

Following Coronado-Olea’s petition for review but prior to the submission of this

case, the government vacated and rescinded its decision to reinstate the prior order

of removal. It has since filed a superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate

Prior Order,1 notified Coronado-Olea’s counsel of the vacatur of the reinstatement

decision, and served notice on the head of the facility in which Coronado-Olea is

currently detained. Consequently, no reviewable final order of removal exists, and

we lack jurisdiction to consider Coronado-Olea’s petitions. See 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(1), (g); see also Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 2012)

(“The carefully crafted congressional scheme governing review of decisions of the

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1
Although Coronado-Olea argues to the contrary, we do not find it
problematic that the superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order
lacks a signature in the decisional portion of the form. This simply signals DHS’s
intent to reinstate the prior order of removal without indicating a decision on the
matter. Moreover, Coronado-Olea cites no case law for the proposition that the
superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order must be final in
order to vacate the prior order of removal.

2
BIA limits this court’s jurisdiction to the review of final orders of removal, even

where a constitutional claim or question of law is raised.” (quoting Alcala v.

Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

DISMISSED.

3