Eduardo Coronado-Olea v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO CORONADO-OLEA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73632
Agency No. A073-391-400
MEMORANDUM*
EDUARDO CORONADO-OLEA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70571
Agency No. A073-391-400
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
APR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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case, the government vacated and rescinded its decision to reinstate the prior order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

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --