NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued September 23, 2019 Decided November 12, 2019 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge No. 19-1492 VICTOR MARTIN VILLA SERRANO, Petition for Review of an Order of the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals. v. No. A073-360-777 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER Petitioner Victor Martin Villa Serrano seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision not to reopen or reconsider a final removal order entered and later reinstated against him. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition. I. Background We addressed Villa’s case recently in Villa v. Barr, 924 F.3d 370 (7th Cir. 2019). In brief, Villa was removed to his native Mexico under a final removal order issued in 2005 No. 19-1492 Page 2 upon his conviction in state court for possessing cocaine. In 2007, he reentered this country unlawfully. The Department of Homeland Security apprehended Villa in 2018 and reinstated the 2005 removal order. Villa has attacked the reinstatement from two directions. First, he petitioned for direct review of the reinstatement order in this court, which petition we dismissed in that earlier case. Id. at 375. Second, he asked the immigration judge to reopen or reconsider the 2005 removal order. The immigration judge denied the motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. This petition seeks review of that decision. II. Analysis A. Jurisdiction We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2154 (2015). “That jurisdiction … encompasses review of decisions refusing to reopen or reconsider such orders.” Mata, 135 S. Ct. at 2154, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6). As the latter thus depends on the former, “we do not have jurisdiction over the motions to reopen or reconsider if we lack jurisdiction over the underlying order.” Cruz-Mayaho v. Holder, 698 F.3d 574, 577 (7th Cir. 2012). Our jurisdiction over the underlying 2005 order is limited by two statutory provisions: Villa’s failure to appeal within thirty days of its entry, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 732 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2013); and Villa’s 2007 unlawful reentry and the resulting 2018 reinstatement of the 2005 order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) and Zambrano-Reyes v. Holder, 725 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2013). Neither provision bars our review for constitutional or legal error, however. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) and Zambrano-Reyes, 725 F.3d at 749, 751. Villa alleges legal error in the 2005 removal order by arguing that it was entered without jurisdiction and a nullity. Under § 1252(a)(2)(D), we would have jurisdiction to review the 2005 order for constitutional or legal errors and thus have jurisdiction to review to the same extent the denial of the motion to reopen or reconsider. Zambrano-Reyes, 725 F.3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals