Pushkar V. Potnis v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued November 3, 2009
Decided January 11, 2010
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No. 09‐2057
PUSHKAR V. POTNIS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General
of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A094‐998‐386
O R D E R
On November 3, 2009, we heard oral argument on Pushkar Potnis’s petition for review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. After argument, on December 28, 2009,
the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened his case and remanded it to an immigration
judge to consider new evidence Potnis had presented. Potnis has moved this court to
remand consideration of his petition for review to the BIA in light of the reopening of his
case.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09‐2057 Page 2
Potnis is correct that the BIA’s decision to reopen his case affects our ability to consider
his petition, but instead of remanding his petition to the BIA, we are compelled to dismiss it
for lack of jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is premised on the existence of a final order of the
BIA. 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(1). The BIA’s order to reopen the proceedings in Potnis’s case
“vacates the previous order of deportation or removal and reinstates the previously
terminated immigration procedures.” Orichitch v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2005);
Bronisz v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2004).Because the previous order is vacated,
we have no jurisdiction to consider it. Gao v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir. 2006). “The
order sought to be reviewed is no more. Any judicial act while there is no outstanding
order of removal would be advisory.” Id. We note that our order dismissing the case does
not foreclose our future consideration of the issues in this petition in the event that Potnis
seeks review of the Board’s determination of his reopened petition. Id.
Accordingly, Potnisʹs petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 2 --