Unpublished Disposition, 852 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 852 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1988)

Alonzo LIZARRAGA-RIOS, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 87-7159.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 19, 1988.* Decided July 6, 1988.

Before MERRILL, REINHARDT and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Petitioner Alonzo Lizarraga-Rios (Lizarraga), in pro per, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his request to stay deportation pending a ruling on his motion to reopen the deportation proceedings. He also seeks review of an order of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss Lizarraga'a petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The BIA's denial of Lizarraga's motion for stay of deportation is not a final order reviewable by the court of appeals under section 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Dhangu v. INS, 812 F.2d 455, 459 (9th Cir. 1987); Kemper v. INS, 705 F.2d 1150, 1150 (9th Cir. 1983). The order denying a stay is an interim discretionary decision reviewable as a decision "incident" to the proceedings when the motion to reopen is before us. Dhangu, 812 F.2d at 459. Lizarraga may seek appropriate relief in district court. Dhangu, 812 F.2d at 459; Kemper, 705 F.2d at 1150.

We also lack jurisdiction at this time to review the IJ's denial of Lizarraga's motion to reopen. Lizarraga must exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA and awaiting its decision prior to seeking our review. Although Lizarraga has appealed to the BIA the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen, the BIA has yet to rule on his appeal. Consequently, Lizarraga has not exhausted his administrative remedies and we lack jurisdiction to review his petition. Dhangu, 812 F.2d at 460-61.

The petition for review is DISMISSED. The mandate will not issue for thirty days so that Lizarraga may seek a stay or other appropriate relief in district court.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3