Juan Guzman-Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN ANTONIO GUZMAN-RAMIREZ, No. 13-73705 Petitioner, Agency No. A097-380-964 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge Argued and Submitted February 8, 2018 Seattle, Washington Before: M. SMITH and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO,** District Judge. Petitioner Juan Antonio Guzman-Ramirez raises three challenges in his petition for review before this court. We find that each of Petitioner’s challenges are either not properly before the court or lack merit. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. First, Petitioner collaterally challenges his 2007 stipulated removal order. Petitioner did not assert the grounds for his collateral attack in 2007, or during his later 2013 reinstatement proceedings.1 Accordingly, Petitioner’s allegations to support his claim that his 2007 removal proceedings subjected him to a gross miscarriage of justice are not in the certified administrative record, for either his 2007 or 2013 removal proceedings. Petitioner’s allegations to support his collateral attack of his 2007 removal order appear for the first time in an amended motion for stay of removal of Petitioner filed in this court. Petitioner only now, before this court, raises the basis for his collateral challenge relying on evidence that is not included in the certified administrative record on which the order of removal is based. The court can decide petitions “only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A), and therefore, Petitioner’s collateral challenge is not properly before us. Petitioner’s claims related to his 2007 removal order are therefore denied. Second, Petitioner challenges his 2013 reinstatement removal order. He argues that the government violated his right to due process and that the 1 At oral argument, the court learned that Petitioner litigated his claims related to his 2007 removal order, but within the Tenth Circuit. In 2014, Petitioner challenged his 2007 stipulated removal order by filing a motion to reopen with the Salt Lake City Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the motion. Petitioner appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”) affirmed the IJ’s denial of the motion. Petitioner did not file a petition for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. 2 government violated its own reinstatement regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.8; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)). This court has determined that Congress intended reinstatement to be a “far more summary procedure than removal” and held that the reinstatement regulation “does not offend due process.” Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 491, 495–97 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Although Morales-Izquierdo left “open the possibility that individual petitioners may raise procedural defects in their particular cases,” id. at 496, Petitioner’s alleged defects are not ...

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