Case ID: f-appx_89/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alejandro ROMANO-PATLAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72421.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
    Allen R. Peters, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Michele Y.F. Sarko, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Romano-Patlan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the government’s decision to reinstate, under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), his prior removal order for attempting to enter the United States by misrepresenting that he had a valid visitor’s visa. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process challenges to immigration decisions. Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 923 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent that Romano challenges the propriety of his prior removal order, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions because the reinstatement statute bars review of them either directly or collaterally. See id. at 924.

Romano’s contention that the reinstatement provisions do not comport with due process fails because he did not establish that he suffered any prejudice. See id. at 925.

PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.