Heriberto Mejia-Aldarco v. Jefferson Sessions, III

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERIBERTO MEJIA-ALDARCO, No. 17-71411 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-456-986 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. The motion to substitute counsel (Docket Entry No. 23) is granted. The motion to permit supplemental briefing (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied. Heriberto Mejia-Aldarco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reinstating 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). 2008 expedited removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review of DHS’ reinstatement order is “limited to confirming the agency’s compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. DHS did not err in issuing Mejia-Aldarco’s reinstatement order, where he concedes, and the record shows, that he is an alien, he was subject to a prior order of removal, and he illegally reentered the United States subsequent to that order. See id. at 1137 (court’s jurisdiction over a reinstatement order is limited to reviewing “three discrete inquiries an immigration officer must make in order to reinstate a removal order: (1) whether the petitioner is an alien; (2) whether the petitioner was subject to a prior removal order, and (3) whether the petitioner re- entered illegally” (citation omitted)). We lack jurisdiction to review Mejia-Aldarco’s collateral challenge to his underlying expedited removal order. See id. at 1138 (“whatever relief might be gained by the operation of [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D) and the ‘gross miscarriage’ standard, it is unavailable to [petitioner] because [his] underlying removal order is an expedited removal order that is subject to additional jurisdictional bars” (emphasis in original)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 17-71411 17-71411 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Heriberto Mejia-Aldarco v. Jefferson Sessions, III 18 May 2018 Agency Unpublished 84047f46019ac79c8aa322b727a2e1ff3109f04e

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