NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 29 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS ORTIZ BECERRA, No. 17-70859 Petitioner, Agency No. A078-103-644 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 20, 2020** Submission Vacated March 16, 2021 Resubmitted April 29, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL,*** District Judge. Carlos Ortiz Becerra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a * 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 Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. reinstatement of removal order, and an immigration judge’s negative reasonable fear determination. The petition is dismissed in part and denied in part. 1. Ortiz Becerra argues that the reinstatement order is invalid because the government hasn’t established the existence of a prior removal order. See Morales- Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); 8 C.F.R. § 241.8) (reinstatement of removal requires there to be a prior removal order in the first place). Ortiz Becerra’s argument relies on the fact that he never signed the prior removal order as required by 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(i). But we do not have jurisdiction to consider this claim. See Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, No. 18-70191, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10492, at *14 (9th Cir. Apr. 13, 2021) (8 U.S.C. § 1252 limits collateral attacks on the validity of an expedited removal order being reinstated to a few “narrow issues” that “must be raised in habeas corpus proceedings”). Ortiz Becerra’s arguments do not implicate these exceptions, and this is not a habeas corpus proceeding. Therefore, we dismiss this portion of Ortiz Becerra’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. 2. We do not find any basis for suppressing Ortiz Becerra’s statements to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials based on alleged regulatory violations. First, officers did not violate 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(iii), which requires an officer to “[i]dentify himself or herself as an immigration officer.” The regulation is temporally limited, only imposing a duty on officers “at the time of the arrest.” 2 See Torres v. Barr, 976 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (the statutory phrase “at the time” imposes a “temporal requirement” on the action at issue). Accordingly, ICE officers did not need to identify themselves when they first made contact with Ortiz Becerra or his daughter because, at that time, they were merely conducting a knock-and-talk while looking for someone else. Nor is Ortiz Becerra entitled to any relief for the alleged violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a), which requires an alien “be examined by an officer other than the arresting officer.” Even assuming …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals