NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 8 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JABER HADDAD, No. 18-72365
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-093-171
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
JABER HADDAD, AKA Jaber Ayed No. 19-71977
Agency No. A070-093-171
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 3, 2021**
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
Before: OWENS and LEE, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,*** District Judge.
Jaber Haddad overstayed his immigration visa and was later convicted of
assault with a semi-automatic firearm. In his removal proceedings, Haddad sought
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ denied his claim,
and he appealed to the BIA. Then things got procedurally complicated.
In an August 3, 2018 decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirmed the IJ’s denial. But prior to the August 3 decision, Haddad had submitted
a motion to terminate, arguing that his initial Notice to Appear was defective and
that the IJ had consequently lacked jurisdiction to hear his claim. The BIA thus
issued an amended decision on November 30, 2018. In that decision, the BIA
expressly vacated its August 3 decision, re-denied Haddad’s CAT claim, and denied
his new jurisdictional argument. Notably, Haddad petitioned for review of the BIA’s
(now-vacated) August 3 decision, but he never sought review of the November 30
Separately, Haddad filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, arguing that his
counsel before the IJ had been ineffective. On July 10, 2019, the BIA issued a
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the
District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
decision rejecting this argument, which Haddad appealed.
We hold that we lack jurisdiction to hear either Haddad’s August 3, 2018 or
November 30, 2018 decisions, and we further hold that Haddad has waived any
argument related to the BIA’s July 10, 2019 decision.
1. This court determines the existence of its own jurisdiction de novo.
Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder,
625 F.3d 621
, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Luu–Le
224 F.3d 911
, 914 (9th Cir. 2000)). “In order for this court to reverse the
BIA with respect to a finding of fact, the evidence must compel a different
conclusion from the one reached by the BIA.” Zheng v. Holder,
644 F.3d 829
(9th Cir. 2011).
2. In the absence of a final order of removal, this court lacks jurisdiction, even
in a case where a petitioner raises a constitutional claim or question of law. Alcala
563 F.3d 1009
, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009). Although the BIA’s August 3
decision was final when Haddad initially appealed, “[o]nce a petition for review has
been filed, federal court jurisdiction is divested  where the BIA subsequently
vacate[d] or materially changes the decision under review.” Plasencia-Ayala v.
516 F.3d 738
, 745 (9th Cir. 2008) overruled on other grounds by
Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder,
558 F.3d 903
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
The BIA “subsequently vacated” its August 3 decision, so under Plasencia-
Ayala, we lack jurisdiction over that decision.
And Haddad never appealed from
the BIA’s November 30 decision. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to hear either
of these appeals.1
3. Finally, Haddad in his brief to this court never raised any argument
about his July 10 ineffective assistance of counsel claim. So he has waived any right
to challenge the BIA’s decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256
60 (9th Cir. 1996).
Haddad’s claim also fails on the merits. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
denial of CAT relief, and Haddad’s jurisdictional argument fails in light of
Karingithi v. Whitaker,
913 F.3d 1158
, 1160–62 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub
nom. Karingithi v. Barr,
140 S. Ct. 1106