NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-3598
___________
LINDSWORTH BROWN-SESSAY, Petitioner
VS.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A076-576-183)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 22, 2013
Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 28, 2013)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Lindsworth Brown-Sessay (“Sessay”)1 petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 24, 2012 decision upholding the Immigration
1
Brown-Sessay’s filings refer to himself as “Sessay,” and we will do the same here.
1
Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering Sessay’s removal to Jamaica. While this case was at the
briefing stage, Sessay moved the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA
subsequently granted that motion and remanded the administrative record to the IJ for
further proceedings.
In light of the BIA’s grant of reopening, both parties now argue that Sessay’s
petition for review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We agree. Our
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) is limited to the review of “final order[s] of
removal.” Although the BIA’s August 24, 2012 decision constituted a final order of
removal at the time Sessay filed his petition, the BIA’s subsequent grant of reopening
effectively vacated that decision. See Bronisz v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir.
2004); Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order). Because there
is no longer a final order of removal before us, we will dismiss Sessay’s petition for lack
of jurisdiction.2
2
Sessay’s brief, filed before the BIA’s grant of reopening, included requests for
miscellaneous relief. To the extent Sessay continues to seek that relief, those requests are
hereby denied.
2