Ancelmo Nunez-Villareal v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANCELMO NUNEZ-VILLAREAL,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73609
Agency No. A072-298-698
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, FISHER,*** and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ancelmo Nunez-Villareal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to terminate proceedings as
improvidently begun. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Although
jurisdiction is at issue, this Court “retain[s] jurisdiction to decide our own
jurisdiction,” and such a review is de novo. Bolanos v. Holder, 734 F.3d 875, 876
(9th Cir. 2013). “We review de novo the BIA’s determination of legal questions,
but we review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial evidence and uphold them
unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770
F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We lack jurisdiction and dismiss the petition for
review.
At the outset, we must recognize that “[t]he carefully crafted
congressional scheme governing review of decisions of the BIA limits this
court’s jurisdiction to the review of final orders of removal.” Alcala v. Holder,
563 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)). Here, the BIA
upheld the IJ’s decision to terminate proceedings as improvidently begun
because Petitioner was subject to an unexecuted Order of Exclusion. As a result,
Nunez-Villareal is not appealing from a final order of removal or from a
reinstatement of removal order. Rather, he appeals from a dismissal, and
“[b]ecause an order dismissing removal proceedings is not an order of removal,
we lack jurisdiction over [Nunez-Villareal’s] petition[] for review.” Id.
Nunez-Villareal’s arguments that (1) the IJ erred in determining he never

-- 2 of 3 --

3
self-deported, and (2) his due process rights were violated when he was not
permitted to testify at a hearing, whatever their merit, do not affect the limits of
our jurisdiction.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --