FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ SABINO, No. 13-71713
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-716-771
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Gonzalez Sabino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) May 14, 2013, order
reinstating his December 14, 2012, expedited removal order. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review 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).
compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539
F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The DHS did not err in reinstating Gonzalez Sabino’s expedited removal
order, where the record demonstrates that Gonzalez Sabino is an alien, he was
subject to a prior expedited removal order in 2012, and he illegally reentered
subsequent to that order. See id. (the court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the
“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”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez Sabino’s collateral attacks on his
prior expedited removal proceedings or his acceptance of administrative voluntary
departure. See Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1138-39 (“Although [8 U.S.C.]
2 13-71713
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) re-vests courts with jurisdiction to review constitutional claims
and questions of law otherwise barred,” it does not re-vest jurisdiction over
reinstated expedited removal orders); 8 U.S.C § 1252(b).
We deny Gonzalez Sabino’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No.
10) as moot and do not consider the declaration Gonzalez Sabino submitted with
his opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the
administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating
standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71713