Rafael Carrillo-Gastellum v. Loretta E. Lynch , 644 F. App'x 727 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL CARRILLO-GASTELLUM, No. 13-71782
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-317-895
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Carrillo-Gastellum, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) May 20, 2013, order
reinstating his January 19, 2013, expedited removal order. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review is “limited to confirming the agency’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539
F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The DHS did not err in issuing Carrillo-Gastellum’s reinstatement order,
where the record shows, and Carrillo-Gastellum does not contest, that he is an
alien, he was subject to a prior expedited order of removal in 2013, and he illegally
reentered subsequent to that order. See id. at 1137 (the court’s jurisdiction is
limited to reviewing the “three discrete inquiries an immigration officer must make
in order to reinstate a removal order: (1) whether the petitioner is an alien; (2)
whether the petitioner was subject to a prior removal order, and (3) whether the
petitioner re-entered illegally”); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (if the DHS “finds that an
alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having
departed voluntarily, under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is
reinstated from its original date”).
In light of our limited jurisdiction, see Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1137,
Carrillo-Gastellum’s contentions challenging a prior voluntary departure in 2012
are not properly before this court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b).
2 13-71782
Carrillo-Gastellum’s request to hold his case in abeyance pending resolution
of Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson, No. 2:13-cv-03972 (C.D. Cal., filed June 4, 2013), is
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71782