Case ID: f-appx_367/html/0860-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul T. COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72259.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
    Jaehoh John Suh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaehoh Suh, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kristin Edison, OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul T. Coleman, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s order reinstating his 1994 deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and questions of law, Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Because Coleman failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice in his initial deportation proceeding, he may not at this point collaterally attack his 1994 deportation order. See id. at 1137-38 (while a petitioner is generally prevented from collaterally attacking an underlying removal order on constitutional due process grounds, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits some measure of review if the petitioner can demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice” in the prior proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.