
    Eduardo CORONADO-OLEA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Eduardo Coronado-Olea, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 11-73632, 12-70571.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 10, 2014
    
    Filed April 18, 2014.
    Kara L. Hartzler, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Shahrzad Ba-ghai, Kathryn Deangelis, Corey Leigh Farrell, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: NOONAN, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Coronado-Olea petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) reinstatement of a pri- or order of removal. Following Coronado-Olea’s petition for review but prior to the submission of this case, the government vacated and rescinded its decision to reinstate the prior order of removal. It has since filed a superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, notified Coronado-Olea’s counsel of the va-catur of the reinstatement decision, and served notice on the head of the facility in which Coronado-Olea is currently detained. Consequently, no reviewable final order of removal exists, and we lack jurisdiction to consider Coronado-Olea’s petitions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (g); see also Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir.2012) (“The carefully crafted congressional scheme governing review of decisions of the BIA limits this court’s jurisdiction to the review of final orders of removal, even where a constitutional claim or question of law is raised.” (quoting Alcala v. Holder, 568 F.3d 1009, 1013, 1016 (9th Cir.2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Although Coronado-Olea argues to the contrary, we do not find it problematic that the superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order lacks a signature in the decisional portion of the form. This simply signals DHS's intent to reinstate the prior order of removal without indicating a decision on the matter. Moreover, Coronado-Olea cites no case law for the proposition that the superseding Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order must be final in order to vacate the prior order of removal.
     