Miguel Espinoza-Hernandez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ESPINOZA-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71699
Agency Nos. A087-035-819
A078-096-697
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Espinoza-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reinstating a
1999 expedited removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our
review of DHS’ reinstatement order is “limited to confirming the agency’s
* 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).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-71699
compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo due
process claims and questions of law. Id. at 1136. We deny the petition for review.
DHS did not err in issuing Espinoza-Hernandez’s reinstatement order, where
the record shows 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)).
Espinoza-Hernandez’s contentions that DHS did not comply with the
procedural requirements in 8 U.S.C. § 241.8 are not supported by the record.
Due to our limited review of reinstatement orders, Espinoza-Hernandez’s
contentions regarding eligibility for adjustment of status are not properly before the
court. See id. at 1137.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --