Jose Huerta-Carillo v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           AUG 02 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSE MANUEL HUERTA-CARRILLO,                     No.   13-72789
    Petitioner,                      Agency No. A074-416-548
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Department of Homeland Security
    Submitted July 26, 2016**
    Before:         SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Jose Manuel Huerta-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
    review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) order reinstating his
    1997 exclusion order under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (a)(5). Our jurisdiction is governed by
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo questions of law. Garcia de Rincon v. DHS,
    *
    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).
    
    539 F.3d 1133
    , 1136 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
    petition for review.
    Based on the transcript dated January 16, 1997, Huerta-Carrillo has not
    established a gross miscarriage of justice in his initial exclusion proceedings.1 See
    
    id. at 1138
     (a petitioner may not obtain collateral review of the underlying order
    being reinstated unless he demonstrates “a gross miscarriage of justice” in the
    initial removal proceedings).
    We lack jurisdiction to review Huerta-Carrillo’s contentions related to the
    underlying 2007 and 2011 Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions because this
    petition for review is not timely as to those decisions. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(1);
    Stone v. INS, 
    514 U.S. 386
    , 405 (1995).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    1
    The government has not contested the authenticity of the January 16, 1997,
    transcript included in Huerta-Carrillo’s opening brief.
    2                                    13-72789
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-72789

Judges: Schroeder, Canby, Callahan

Filed Date: 8/2/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024