United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60913
Summary Calendar
SANTOS GONZALEZ PEREZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A78 173 832)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Santos Gonzalez Perez has petitioned for review of
an order of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(BICE) reinstating his December 28, 2000, expedited removal order.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1), 1231(a)(5). Under implementing
regulations pertaining to reinstatement proceedings, “the alien is
not entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge.” Ojeda-
Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing 8
C.F.R. § 241.8(a)). “Rather, an INS officer determines (1) the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
identity of the alien; (2) whether the alien was subject to a prior
order of removal; and (3) whether the alien unlawfully reentered
the United States.” Id.
Gonzalez Perez does not dispute that he was subject to an
order of removal issued on December 28, 2000, or that he reentered
the United States on or about February 1, 2001. Rather, he argues
that his 2000 expedited order of removal was unlawful because it
was not issued by an immigration judge and, alternatively, that the
expedited order of removal violated due process because it was
issued despite his valid visa. He also argues that the
reinstatement of the removal order violated due process because the
expedited order of removal was not lawfully issued and because
“reinstating an order of removal which asserts that he is removable
on invalid grounds would violate due process.”
Reinstatement of a previously issued order of removal or
deportation is a final order, and, as such, this court has
jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the reinstatement order.
Ojeda-Terrazas, 290 F.3d at 295. We may not, however, reopen or
review the merits of the 2000 removal order. See id. Gonzalez
Perez is challenging the reinstatement of his 2000 removal order on
the ground that the already-executed removal order is invalid.
Thus, “the crux of his claim constitutes a collateral attack on the
[2000] removal order.” See Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508,
514 (5th Cir. 2006). We may review the validity of an underlying
removal order only when there is a showing of a gross miscarriage
2
of justice in the initial proceedings. See id. Even if, in the
context of a petition for review of a reinstatement decision, we
were to consider this collateral challenge to the expedited removal
order, we would not grant review because Gonzalez Perez has failed
to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice. Accordingly,
Gonzalez Perez’s petition for review is
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
3