CHRISTIAN OLMOS VASQUEZ, AKA Vanessa Olmos Vasquez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIAN OLMOS VASQUEZ, AKA
Vanessa Olmos Vasquez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72966
Agency No. A205-128-698
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 6, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
AUG 09 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Petitioner Vanessa Olmos Vasquez (Olmos) seeks review of a final
administrative removal order that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
issued but subsequently cancelled. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), we have jurisdiction to
review only “a final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see also Lolong v.
Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“[O]ur jurisdiction is
limited to the review of final orders of removal . . . .”). Because DHS canceled the
final administrative removal order it issued to Olmos, there is no longer a final
order of removal for this court to review. See Lopez–Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d
886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order). To the extent the record leaves any room for
doubt about whether DHS’s cancellation was effective, we rely on the
government’s representations that “Olmos is no longer subject to any final order of
removal” and that DHS does not “have any intention of bringing new removal
charges” against her.
We reject outright Olmos’s reliance on distinguishable case law to argue that
we may exercise jurisdiction because the canceled order remains “tantamount to a
final order.” Both Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2012), and Lolong
demonstrate fidelity to the INA’s jurisdictional scheme, and neither case “broadly
construe[s]” the basis for our jurisdiction in the manner Olmos suggests.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Petition for review DISMISSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --