Heriberto Mejia-Aldarco v. Jefferson Sessions, III

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERIBERTO MEJIA-ALDARCO, No. 17-71411
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-456-986
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The motion to substitute counsel (Docket Entry No. 23) is granted. The
motion to permit supplemental briefing (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied.
Heriberto Mejia-Aldarco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reinstating a
*
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).
2008 expedited removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Our review of DHS’ reinstatement order is “limited to confirming the agency’s
compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss
in part the petition for review.
DHS did not err in issuing Mejia-Aldarco’s reinstatement order, where he
concedes, and the record shows, that he is an alien, he was subject to a prior order
of removal, and he illegally reentered the United States subsequent to that order.
See id. at 1137 (court’s jurisdiction over a reinstatement order is limited to
reviewing “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” (citation omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to review Mejia-Aldarco’s collateral challenge to his
underlying expedited removal order. See id. at 1138 (“whatever relief might be
gained by the operation of [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D) and the ‘gross miscarriage’
standard, it is unavailable to [petitioner] because [his] underlying removal order is
an expedited removal order that is subject to additional jurisdictional bars”
(emphasis in original)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 17-71411