FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CIRILO RAMIREZ RODAZ, No. 15-70441
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-760-659
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Cirilo Ramirez Rodaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) February 6, 2015,
order reinstating his 2010 expedited removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252 and 1231. Our review is “limited to confirming the agency’s
*
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).
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 issuing Ramirez Rodaz’s reinstatement order, where
Ramirez Rodaz does not contest that he is an alien, he is the subject of a prior
expedited order of removal in 2010, and he illegally reentered subsequent to that
order. See id. (the court’s review is limited to 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 . . .”).
Ramirez Rodaz has not established that his reinstatement proceedings violated due
process. See Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1137 (reinstatement of a prior removal
order, regardless of the process afforded in the underlying order, does not offend
due process).
To the extent Ramirez Rodaz challenges the underlying 2010 expedited
removal order, we lack jurisdiction to consider this collateral attack. See 8 U.S.C.
2 15-70441
§ 1252(e)(2); Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1137 (“whatever relief might be
gained by the operation of [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D) . . . , it is unavailable to
[petitioner] because h[is] underlying removal order is an expedited removal order
that is subject to additional jurisdictional bars – 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A) and
1252(e)”).
We do not consider the extra-record evidence filed with Ramirez Rodaz’s
opening brief, see Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating
standard for review of out-of-record evidence), and deny his request for a stay of
removal, see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009).
Finally, to the extent Ramirez Rodaz contends he is eligible for relief, we
cannot reach any such remaining contention in this proceeding.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-70441