Timbreza v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Timbreza v. Ashcroft

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 2005

Docket02-72507

StatusPublished

This text of Timbreza v. Ashcroft (Timbreza v. Ashcroft) 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

Timbreza v. Ashcroft, (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROMEO UMAGAT TIMBREZA,  Petitioner, No. 02-72507 v.  Agency No. A45-228-894 ALBERTO R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, ORDER Respondent.  Filed June 7, 2005

Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Petitioner’s unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of his Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED.

We previously denied the Petition for Review. Timbreza v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed. Appx. 611, 2004 WL 1041987 (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition) (filed May 5, 2004). How- ever, before that decision was rendered, and without notice being given to this court by the parties in their briefing or oth- erwise, on March 3, 2003, the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened petitioner’s removal proceedings. The result was that this court was not reviewing a final order of removal, contrary to the suggestion in the briefs. We have no jurisdic- tion to review this case without a final order of removal. See,

*Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

6343 6344 TIMBREZA v. GONZALES e.g., Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002). The parties are instructed in other like circumstances to give notice to this court. Our May 5, 2004 disposition, which rested on the false premise that we were reviewing a final order of removal, is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

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

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROMEO UMAGAT TIMBREZA,  Petitioner, No. 02-72507 v.  Agency No. A45-228-894 ALBERTO R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, ORDER Respondent.  Filed June 7, 2005

Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Petitioner’s unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of his Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED.

We previously denied the Petition for Review. Timbreza v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed. Appx. 611, 2004 WL 1041987 (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition) (filed May 5, 2004). How- ever, before that decision was rendered, and without notice being given to this court by the parties in their briefing or oth- erwise, on March 3, 2003, the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened petitioner’s removal proceedings. The result was that this court was not reviewing a final order of removal, contrary to the suggestion in the briefs. We have no jurisdic- tion to review this case without a final order of removal. See,

*Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

6343 6344 TIMBREZA v. GONZALES e.g., Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002). The parties are instructed in other like circumstances to give notice to this court. Our May 5, 2004 disposition, which rested on the false premise that we were reviewing a final order of removal, is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Timbreza v. Ashcroft, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timbreza-v-ashcroft-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack