Gehring v. Gonzales

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 28, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60124
Summary Calendar
JUANA GEHRING,
Petitioner
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A71 563 830)
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juana Gehring, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the order reinstating her 1994 deportation order.
Gehring contends the reinstatement violated her due-process rights
because the streamlined reinstatement procedures denied her rights
to: develop a record; have an attorney present; and have an
impartial decision-maker. Gehring has not asserted, however, that
the result would have been different had she been given these
procedural safeguards. Nor does she challenge the immigration

-- 1 of 3 --

2
officer’s findings in support of reinstating her 1994 deportation
order. Because she has not shown she was prejudiced, we do not
reach the merits of her due-process claim. See Ojeda-Terrazas v.
Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 302 (5th Cir. 2002).
Gehring next contends 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) is impermissibly
retroactive as applied to her case because she reentered the United
States before the statute was enacted. As she concedes in her
reply brief, however, her contention is foreclosed by Fernandez-
Vargas v. Gonzales, 126 S. Ct. 2422, 2425 (2006).
Gehring also asserts the underlying 1994 deportation order was
invalid because: (1) her due-process rights were violated when she
was not given an opportunity to be heard concerning her
deportation; and (2) exceptional circumstances beyond her control
prevented her attending the deportation hearing. This claim, filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, was transferred to this court pursuant to
the REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (11 May 2005).
That Act did not alter our jurisdictional requirements:
(1) administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to seeking
judicial review of a removal order; and (2) a collateral attack on
a deportation order may be considered only if the deportation
involved a gross miscarriage of justice. Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar,
436 F.3d 508, 514-15 (5th Cir. 2006). Gehring has not shown the
requisite gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we lack
jurisdiction to consider her collateral challenge. See id. at 514-
15.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, Gehring’s petition for review is DENIED in part
and DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --