Vilma Carolina Rodriguez-Urbina v. U.S. Attorney General

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2023
• Docket: 23-10846
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-10846 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10846 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

VILMA CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ-URBINA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-794-237 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-10846 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10846

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional questions, the government’s motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and this petition for review is DISMISSED. Vilma Rodriguez-Urbina seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sum- marily dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) in absentia removal order for lack of jurisdiction. In that order, the BIA explained that she needed to file a motion to reopen and re- scind with the IJ and invited her to do so. Accordingly, the BIA’s order summarily dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction is not a final order of removal. See INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, in immigration cases, we have jurisdiction to re- view only final orders of removal); Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 828, 831 n.2 (holding that a BIA order recognizing the need for or invit- ing further administrative proceedings is not final until the alien has exhausted those further administrative remedies), rev’d on other grounds, 386 F.3d 1022, 1024 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (incor- porating the jurisdictional opinion and holding from the prior panel). Additionally, Rodriguez-Urbina seeks review of the BIA’s order denying her motion to reopen or reconsider its dismissal or- der. The BIA’s dismissal order, however, did not order Rodriguez- USCA11 Case: 23-10846 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 3 of 3

23-10846 Opinion of the Court 3

Urbina’s removal, and the BIA did not exercise jurisdiction to re- view the IJ’s in absentia removal order. See INA §§ 101(a)(47)(A), 240(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(A), 1229a(c)(1)(A); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1272 n.16 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining that final orders of removal encompass rulings made by the IJ or BIA that affect the validity of the final order of removal). Accordingly, Rodriguez-Urbina’s motion to reopen or reconsider, which argued the BIA erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, did not seek to reopen or reconsider a final order of removal, and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order denying that motion. See Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the juris- dictional grant in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) implicitly provides courts with jurisdiction to review the denials of motions to reopen or re- consider final orders of removal).