FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGUSTIN ROMERO-MEZA, No. 13-72908
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-522-150
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Agustin Romero-Meza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
terminating his removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Because an order terminating removal proceedings is not a final order of
removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider Romero-Meza’s petition for review of his
motion to reconsider the dismissal of his appeal of the order terminating removal
proceedings. See Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1013-16 (9th Cir. 2009); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (“Judicial review of all questions of law and fact . . .
shall be available only in judicial review of a final order [of removal].”).
To the extent Romero-Meza contends that the court has jurisdiction to
review his 1999 expedited removal order, this contention fails. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(e)(2); Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138-
39 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hatever relief might be gained by the operation of
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) and the ‘gross miscarriage’ standard, it is unavailable to
[petitioner] because her underlying removal order is an expedited removal order
that is subject to additional jurisdictional bars—8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A) and
1252(e) . . . [and §] 1252(e) only permits review of expedited removal orders in a
habeas corpus petition” (emphasis in original)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 13-72908