Case ID: f-appx_705/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin PIMENTAL-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72363
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted October 2, 2017 Portland, Oregon
    Filed December 07, 2017
    Maria Zlateva, Maria Zlateva, P.C., Salem, OR, Patrick Sherwood, Counsel, Patrick H. Sherwood, P.C., Portland, OR, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matt A. Crapo, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and LAMBERTH, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Royce C, Lamberth, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation,
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Pimental-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) February 12, 2013 order reinstating his February 4,1999 order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Review of a reinstated order of removal is typically “limited to confirming the agency’s' compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garda de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 498 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Pimental-Lopez does not challenge any of the three requirements for reinstatement of the February 4,1999 removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1137. Instead, he challenges the underlying removal order on several legal and constitutional grounds.

The governing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) states that the “petition to review [orders of removal] must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” Pimental-Lopez’s order of removal was entered against him on February 4, 1999. He did not challenge that removal order until the instant appeal, which he filed on May 20, 2014. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review his challenges to the underlying order- of removal. In light of this disposition, we need not address Pimental-Lopez’s remaining arguments.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.