FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIANA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ, No. 09-72942
Petitioner, Agency No. A086-966-728
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Adriana Guerrero-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement decision reinstating her prior
removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law and due process claims. Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t Homeland
Security, 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Guerrero-Hernandez’s contention, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) applies
to her expedited removal order. See Moralez-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484,
496 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“Any mode of departure - voluntary or
involuntary - while subject to an order of removal constitutes a removal for
reinstatement purposes.”).
The reinstatement of Guerrero-Hernandez’s removal order did not violate
her due process rights. See id. at 497 (“Reinstatement of a prior removal order -
regardless of the process afforded in the underlying order - does not offend due
process because reinstatement of a prior order does not change the alien’s rights or
remedies.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72942