Summary Calendar NIKITA ANDREVICH SAMODUMOV; ANDREY ANDREVICH SAMODUMOV v. John Ashcroft, U.s. Attorney General

*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
-1-
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 5, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 03-60862
Summary Calendar
_________________________
NIKITA ANDREVICH SAMODUMOV;
ANDREY ANDREVICH SAMODUMOV,
Petitioners,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A73-113-707
BIA No. A73-113-708
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal, we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(hereinafter, “BIA”) decision to dismiss Petitioners, Nikita and
Andrey Samodumov’s, appeals and the BIA’s denial of the
Samodumovs’ motions to remand.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Nikita and Andrey Samodumov, natives and citizens of Russia,
argue that either the Immigration Judge or the BIA should have
reopened their case and remanded it to the District Director
because only the District Director has jurisdiction to adjudicate
their pending application for adjustment of status.
This court recently held that because no meaningful standard
exists against which to judge an Immigration Judge’s decision to
exercise sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings,
we lack jurisdiction to review a decision not to reopen
deportation proceedings. See Enrique-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S.
821, 830 (1985)).
Therefore, the Samodumovs’ petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --