ALMA CACERES-OLIVARES, AKA Alma Cazares-Olivares v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALMA CACERES-OLIVARES, AKA Alma
Cazares-Olivares,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70056
Agency No. A087-737-678
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, WATFORD, and WALLACH,*** Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Alma Caceres-Olivares, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered
the United States without inspection in 2010. The Department of Homeland
* 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).
*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Security (“DHS”) issued an expedited removal order soon thereafter and removed
Petitioner to Guatemala. Petitioner reentered the United States after a few months,
and DHS reinstated the prior order of removal. Because Petitioner was a victim of
domestic violence and fears return to Guatemala, an immigration judge granted
withholding of removal. Petitioner seeks our review of the reinstated removal
order so that she can apply for asylum. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it
in part.
1. To the extent that Petitioner challenges the original expedited removal
order, we lack jurisdiction to consider her arguments. Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1137–39 (9th Cir. 2008).
2. We have rejected Petitioner’s argument that a reinstatement order
contradicts the asylum statute by improperly precluding access to asylum. Perez-
Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1080–82 (9th Cir. 2016). And we lack
jurisdiction to adjudicate Petitioner’s claim that she should have been placed in
removal proceedings anew, rather than having the prior removal order reinstated.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (providing that we lack jurisdiction to entertain a non-
citizen’s claim that arises “from the decision or action by the Attorney General to
commence proceedings”).
3. With respect to the reinstatement order itself, we have jurisdiction but
may review only these factual predicates: whether Petitioner is a non-citizen,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
whether she was subject to a prior removal order, and whether she re-entered the
United States illegally. Morales de Soto v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir.
2016). Petitioner does not challenge any of those factual predicates.
4. Petitioner has not established affirmative misconduct beyond mere
negligence on the part of the government; misconduct is a prerequisite to her claim
of equitable estoppel. Morgan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 3 of 3 --