Lindsworth Brown-Sessay v. Attorney General United States, No. 12-3598 (3d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 27, 2013.
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-3598 ___________ LINDSWORTH BROWN-SESSAY, Petitioner VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A076-576-183) Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 22, 2013 Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 28, 2013) ___________ OPINION ___________ PER CURIAM Lindsworth Brown-Sessay ( Sessay )1 petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) August 24, 2012 decision upholding the Immigration 1 Brown-Sessay s filings refer to himself as Sessay, and we will do the same here. 1 Judge s ( IJ ) decision ordering Sessay s removal to Jamaica. While this case was at the briefing stage, Sessay moved the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA subsequently granted that motion and remanded the administrative record to the IJ for further proceedings. In light of the BIA s grant of reopening, both parties now argue that Sessay s petition for review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We agree. Our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(a)(1) is limited to the review of final order[s] of removal. Although the BIA s August 24, 2012 decision constituted a final order of removal at the time Sessay filed his petition, the BIA s subsequent grant of reopening effectively vacated that decision. See Bronisz v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2004); Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order). Because there is no longer a final order of removal before us, we will dismiss Sessay s petition for lack of jurisdiction.2 2 Sessay s brief, filed before the BIA s grant of reopening, included requests for miscellaneous relief. To the extent Sessay continues to seek that relief, those requests are hereby denied. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
