Reyna Eliseth Valenzuela De La Cruz v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2023 )

USCA11 Case: 23-11320 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11320
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
REYNA ELISETH VALENZUELA DE LA CRUZ,
JEREMY DANIEL BAUTISTA VALENZUELA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209-134-060
USCA11 Case: 23-11320 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11320
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In April 2023, Reyna Valenzuela de la Cruz and her son, Jer-
emy Bautista Valenzuela (collectively, “Petitioners”), filed a petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 2023 or-
der affirming the denial of their applications for asylum, withhold-
ing of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treat-
ment or Punishment. In September 2023, Petitioners filed an un-
opposed motion to dismiss their petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners assert that, on September 1, 2023, the BIA
granted a motion to reopen and administratively close their re-
moval proceedings that removed from the proceedings the finality
necessary for us to exercise jurisdiction over the instant petition for
review.
Although Petitioners’ removal orders were final at the time
they filed the petition for review, the BIA’s decision to reopen and
administratively close Petitioners’ removal proceedings rendered
their removal orders non-final, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction
to consider their petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(9)
& (d); cf. Jaernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1351-52 (11th
Cir. 2005) (concluding that we had jurisdiction after the BIA
granted reconsideration but explicitly upheld the earlier removal
order).
USCA11 Case: 23-11320 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-11320 Opinion of the Court 3
Accordingly, Petitioners’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED
and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.