Cyrille Kouambo v. William Barr, 943 F.3d 205

Kouambo, a Yakoma from the Central African Republic, fled CAR and lived in the Republic of Congo (ROC) for ~12 years, working as a physician and obtaining a ROC document recognizing him as a refugee since 2001.
He entered the United States in October 2013 using an ROC passport and applied for asylum (Aug 2014); DHS charged him as removable for lack of a valid entry document.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum in July 2017 as barred by ‘‘firm resettlement’’ in the ROC, but granted withholding of removal to the CAR; the IJ did not reach CAT relief.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the asylum bar on July 9, 2018 but remanded the case to the IJ to allow DHS to complete/ update mandatory background and security checks before the BIA or IJ could finally resolve withholding.
Kouambo filed a petition for review of the BIA’s remand order on Aug 8, 2018; administrative proceedings proceeded and the IJ issued an October 3, 2018 removal order granting withholding (now appealed to the BIA).
The Fourth Circuit dismissed Kouambo’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding the BIA’s remand order for background checks is not a "final order of removal" under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA’s July 9, 2018 remand order is a "final order of removal" subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252	The remand implicitly affirmed the IJ’s removal finding and thus is a final order reviewable by the court	The remand left key matters unresolved (mandatory DHS background checks, possible reconsideration of withholding), so it is not final and not reviewable	BIA remand for background checks is not a final order of removal; no jurisdiction to review under § 1252
Whether treating the remand as final would permit meaningful review given the 30-day filing limit	Kouambo argued immediate review is appropriate to contest asylum denial	Government argued deeming remand final could bar review of decisions made after background checks because the 30-day clock would run earlier	Court held treating remand as final would risk denying review of later adverse actions and is inconsistent with statutory scheme; remand is not final

Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (BIA remand for background checks is not a final removal order)
Ponce-Osorio v. Johnson, 824 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2016) (same conclusion on finality after remand)
Vakker v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 519 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 2008) (holds remand for background checks is not final)
Goromou v. Holder, 721 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2013) (same)
Chupina v. Holder, 570 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2009) (same)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (finality in administrative law requires consummation of decisionmaking and legal consequences)
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (distinguishing asylum and withholding standards)
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995) (30-day petition-for-review deadline is jurisdictional)
Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005) (emphasizes jurisdictional limits in immigration statutes)
Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 2015) (procedural context on appellate jurisdiction in immigration matters)