Alejandro Oros-Franco v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO OROS-FRANCO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71266
Agency No. A029-457-665
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 4, 2015 **
Pasadena California
Before: FERNANDEZ, PARKER*** , and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Oros-Franco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Department of Homeland Security’s April 5, 2011, reinstatement of his 1989
FILED
MAR 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

deportation order. This Court has jurisdiction over the petition under the
Immigration and Nationality Act as amended. 8 U.S.C. §1252. Although we review
legal questions de novo, our review of a reinstatement order is otherwise “limited
to confirming the agency’s compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia
de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2008).
Oros-Franco contends that the reinstatement order was not properly
executed. Oros-Franco’s argument that the order was not properly executed is
without merit. He provides no evidence that would overcome the presumption of
regularity applied to the official acts of public officers. See United States v.
Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1207 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Morales-Izquierdo
v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 496 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“Morales points to no
material errors in his file; nor does he explain what evidence he would have
presented, had he been given the opportunity to do so.”)
He next seeks to challenge his underlying 1989 deportation order. This
challenge fails because it relies on a misreading of then-existing immigration law
and because Oros-Franco has not shown that his original hearing before the
immigration judge perpetrated a “gross miscarriage of justice.” See Garcia de
Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1138.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Oros-Franco contends that because the U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute him for illegal re-entry, his deportation order cannot be reinstated under
this Court’s ruling in Villa-Anguiano v. Holder. 727 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2013). His
reliance on Villa-Anguiano is misplaced. In that case, the agency appeared to be
unaware of a court decision dismissing the illegal re-entry case against the
petitioner on the merits. 727 F.3d at 879-80. In this case, the U.S. Attorney’s
Office exercised its discretion not to prosecute Oros-Franco, and the agency was
aware of this decision.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --