FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO MORENO-TOSCANO, No. 13-72134
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-570-882
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Mario Moreno-Toscano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) June 14, 2013, order
reinstating his 1997 order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Our review is “limited to confirming the agency’s compliance with the
*
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).
reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The DHS did not err in issuing Moreno-Toscano’s reinstatement order,
where the record shows, and Moreno-Toscano admitted in a sworn statement to a
DHS officer, that he was an alien, he was subject to a prior order of removal in
1997, and he illegally reentered subsequent to that order. See Garcia de Rincon,
539 F.3d at 1137 (our jurisdiction 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”); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(5) (if the DHS “finds that an alien has reentered the United States
illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order
of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date”).
Furthermore, Moreno-Toscano does not contend that any miscarriage of
justice occurred in connection with his underlying 1997 removal order. See Garcia
de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1138 (while a petitioner is generally prevented from
collaterally attacking an underlying deportation order on constitutional or legal
grounds, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits some measure of review if he can
demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice” in the underlying proceedings).
2 13-72134
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Moreno-Toscano’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72134