Imad Musa Ahmed Musa v. Atty Gen USA

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-25-2004
Imad Musa Ahmed Musa v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-4267
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Imad Musa Ahmed Musa v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 583.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/583
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-4267
IMAD MUSA AHMED MUSA,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(No. A-94-006-556)
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 15, 2004
Before: ALITO, SMITH, and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: June 25, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Imad Musa petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) of his application for asylum and other relief. On February 12, 2004, the BIA ruled
that, certain irregularities in the original disposition of Musa’s case by the Immigration
Judge (IJ) having been brought to its attention, the prior decision of the Board was to be
vacated and the case remanded to the IJ “for further proceedings and for the entry of a
new decision.” Accordingly, there is no longer any “final order of removal” extant that
this Court has jurisdiction to review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Calcano-Martinez v.
INS, 533 U.S. 348, 350 (2001). We therefore dismiss Musa’s petition for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice to whatever right he may have to raise his claims before
this Court at a later date, should the occasion arise. Cf. Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d
886 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissing review petition for lack of jurisdiction where BIA has
granted motion to reopen).
2