Gustavo Hernandez v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ, No. 13-73528 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-668-095 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: ROGERS,*** BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Gustavo Hernandez petitions to review the reinstatement of an order of removal, arguing that the initial removal order should not have been imposed on * 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 John M. Rogers, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. him. Because Hernandez cannot challenge his previous removal order in this collateral manner, we deny the petition for review. To uphold the reinstatement of an order of removal against a petitioner, a court must confirm that “(1) petitioner is an alien, (2) who was subject to a prior removal order, and (3) who illegally reentered the United States.” Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); 8 C.F.R. § 241.8). It is not disputed that Hernandez is an alien, that he was subject to the 2001 removal order entered against him, and that he then illegally reentered the United States. Those facts are enough to confirm that this reinstatement of Hernandez’s removal order was permissible. Hernandez objects to this analysis at its second step, contending that the 2001 removal order should not have been entered against him. This is not a permissible position in this context, however. The reinstatement statute “specifically bars relitigation of the merits of the reinstated removal order.” Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C § 1231(a)(5)). Hernandez’s claims about the impropriety of the 2001 removal order are nothing more than merits objections to the 2001 order, and Hernandez cannot wield such a collateral attack in this petition for review of the reinstatement. It is true that a court may review an underlying removal order despite the general prohibition on collateral challenges “if the petitioner can show that he has 2 suffered a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’ in the initial deportation proceeding.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Debeato v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 505 F.3d 231, 235 (3d Cir. 2007)). But no such gross miscarriage occurred here. Hernandez argues that at the time of his 2001 removal hearing, he was potentially eligible to have adjusted his immigration status pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act § 245(i), 8 U.S.C. 1255(i), and that the hearing judge erred in ordering Hernandez removed, possibly without having informed him of this possibility. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals