NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XOCHITL ANTUNEZ-VALENTE, No. 19-72846 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-480-205 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security Submitted January 14, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District Judge. Xochitl Antunez-Valente petitions for review of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order reinstating her prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. * 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 without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Page 2 of 4 § 1231(a)(5). Although we review de novo due process claims and questions of law, our review of a reinstatement order is ordinarily limited to confirming that the agency complied with its regulations. Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. 1. The reinstatement order is valid because the record shows that Antunez- Valente is a noncitizen who was subject to a prior order of removal, and yet illegally reentered the United States after being removed subject to that order. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a). Although the certified administrative record omits the prior removal order, the government has moved to supplement the record with that document, claiming inadvertent error. We grant the government’s motion. To challenge the reinstatement order, Antunez-Valente contends that her reentry was not illegal because she did not intend to deceive border officials when she presented herself at the San Ysidro pedestrian entry, truthfully answered the border official’s questions, and was waved through. Our precedent forecloses her argument. Procedurally regular entries can nevertheless be substantively illegal for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Tellez v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016); Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder, 725 F.3d 950, 952–54 (9th Cir. 2013). Our recent decision in Tomczyk v. Wilkinson, --- F.3d ---, 2021 WL 359999 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2021), does not dictate a different outcome. In Tomczyk, we held that an illegal reentry under § 1231(a)(5) requires some form of misconduct by the Page 3 of 4 noncitizen, such as “entering without inspection, entering in violation of a requirement to obtain advance consent from the Attorney General, or procuring admission by fraud.” Id. at *8. Although Antunez-Valente was waved through in a non-fraudulent manner similar to the petitioner in Tomczyk, she reentered without obtaining the advance permission of the Attorney General, as required under the terms of her prior removal order. The Form I-205 issued to her in connection with that removal in January 2000 states that she is prohibited from entering, attempting to enter, or being in the United States ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals