United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3409 ___________________________ Juan Hernandez Gonzalez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 16, 2020 Filed: April 21, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Juan Hernandez Gonzalez petitions for review of an order, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2019, reinstating a prior expedited order of removal against him, and also petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by an immigration judge upholding a DHS immigration officer’s reasonable fear determination. As a preliminary matter, we conclude that Hernandez Gonzalez waived any challenge to the immigration judge’s order because he failed to address it in his briefs. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief is deemed waived). This court has limited jurisdiction to review a reinstatement order, including due process challenges. See Ochoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (recognizing jurisdictional authority); Cardoza Salazar v. Barr, 932 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir. 2019) (petitioner must demonstrate fundamental procedural error and prejudice to succeed on a due process challenge to a reinstatement order). For reversal, Hernandez Gonzalez argues that there was not substantial evidence to support the 2019 reinstatement order because the underlying removal order was not properly issued, served, or executed, and he suggests that his due process rights were violated as a result. We lack jurisdiction, however, to review a collateral attack on the underlying removal order in a petition for review of a reinstatement order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (stating, in part, that a reinstated prior order of removal “is not subject to being reopened or reviewed”); Lara-Nieto v. Barr, 945 F.3d at 1059-60 & n.4 (8th Cir. 2019) (this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a collateral challenge to the validity of an underlying removal order, including a due-process challenge based on alleged infirmities in the removal order, because this court’s jurisdiction is limited to the reinstatement order itself); Briones-Sanchez v. Heinauer, 319 F.3d 324, 327 (8th Cir. 2003) (petitioner, who challenged an underlying removal order, could demonstrate no prejudice, and thus no due process violation, because even if DHS had granted him additional process during the reinstatement proceedings, § 1231(a)(5) nevertheless precluded a collateral attack on the removal order). -2- This court’s jurisdiction is instead limited to reviewing the reinstatement order itself, i.e., whether DHS established Hernandez Gonzalez’s identity, the existence of a prior removal order, and his unlawful reentry into the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a) (reinstatement criteria); Perez-Garcia v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussing criteria); see also Lara-Nieto, 945 F.3d at 1059 (this court reviews a reinstatement order for substantial evidence and will not overturn DHS’s factual findings unless it would not be possible for any reasonable fact-finder ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals