Marco Lopez-Ortiz v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCO LOPEZ-ORTIZ, No. 14-73459 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-763-803 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Court Submitted October 11, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,*** District Judge. Marco Lopez-Ortiz appeals an immigration judge’s negative reasonable fear determination. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as * 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 James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. necessary to explain our decision. I We lack jurisdiction to hear Lopez-Ortiz’s challenge to his underlying expedited removal order.1 Ninth Circuit precedent makes clear that our jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on expedited removal orders is quite limited. See Pena v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 452, 455–56 (9th Cir. 2015). Pena forecloses jurisdiction here, because Lopez-Ortiz does not allege constitutional violations in his expedited removal order, he is not the subject of criminal charges, and he does not seek a writ of habeas corpus. See id. Lopez-Ortiz’s reliance on Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 741 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2014), is unavailing, because Smith was plainly limited to the habeas context. Lopez-Ortiz’s reliance on criminal cases is similarly unpersuasive, because the reinstatement of a prior removal order “imposes no . . . criminal penalties.” Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 498 (9th Cir. 2007). II Lopez-Ortiz is ineligible to apply for asylum during his reinstatement proceedings. See Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1082 (9th Cir. 2016). 1 Because we lack jurisdiction over Lopez-Ortiz’s underlying expedited removal order, the documents with which he seeks to supplement the record are irrelevant. Therefore, Lopez-Ortiz’s Motion to Supplement the Certified Administrative Record is DENIED. 2 III The immigration judge (IJ) did not err in determining that Lopez-Ortiz lacks a reasonable fear of persecution or torture upon removal to Mexico. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade- Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833–36 (9th Cir. 2016). As an initial matter, the IJ’s opinion was fairly brief. Lopez-Ortiz argues that this opinion is mere boilerplate devoid of individualized review, and therefore cannot be sustained under Ghaly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). But Lopez-Ortiz raises this objection to the form of the IJ’s decision for the first time in his reply brief, and so he has waived this argument. Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, we move to the substance of the IJ decision. A The IJ did not err in finding that Lopez-Ortiz lacks ...

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