Karshe v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Karshe v. Gonzales

161 F. App'x 726

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 2006

DocketNo. 04-70696; Agency No. A79-573-339

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 F. App'x 726 (Karshe v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karshe v. Gonzales, 161 F. App'x 726 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Said Ismail Karshe, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum and granting his application for withholding of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Only final orders of removal are subject to direct review in the Courts of Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see also Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (order). Because the IJ granted Karshe withholding of removal, he is not subject to a “final order of removal.” We therefore dismiss his petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

Because we lack jurisdiction in this matter, we do not reach Karshe’s claims that the IJ erred in determining that Karshe failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he filed his application for asylum within one year of his entry into the United States. The issues raised in this petition for review may nevertheless be subject to later judicial review in the event a final order of removal is issued.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Said Ismail Karshe, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum and granting his application for withholding of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Only final orders of removal are subject to direct review in the Courts of Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see also Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (order). Because the IJ granted Karshe withholding of removal, he is not subject to a “final order of removal.” We therefore dismiss his petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

Because we lack jurisdiction in this matter, we do not reach Karshe’s claims that the IJ erred in determining that Karshe failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he filed his application for asylum within one year of his entry into the United States. The issues raised in this petition for review may nevertheless be subject to later judicial review in the event a final order of removal is issued.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 F. App'x 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karshe-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack