NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR HIGARERA

- SEGURA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72611

Agency No. A075

- 185

- 118

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 11, 2018 ** San Francisco, California

Before: SILER, *** PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Salvador Higarera

- Segura, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)’s decision to reinstate

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by des ignation. 

# FILED

JUN 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

his prior removal order. We dismiss the petition as moot.

In light of Higarera

- Segura’s reentry into the United States while the present

p etition for review was pending , we cannot order any “ effective relief

. ” 1 Bayer v.

Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc. , 861 F.3d 853, 862 (9th Cir. 2017). Higarera

- Segura is

no longer subject to the reinstatement decision under review. Rather, DHS must

make a new determinat ion as to whe ther to reinstate Higarera

- Segura’s February

2011 removal order. Thus, even if we were to vacate the reinstatement decision

,

such relief would have no concrete effect. Furthermore, Higarera

- Segura d oes not

argue that the reinstatement decision under revi ew carries with it a “collateral

consequence” that may be redressed through the present petition

, Del Cid

Marroquin v. Lynch , 823 F.3d 933, 935 (9th Cir. 2016), and we are no t aware of

any such consequence, see Morales

- Izquierdo v. Gonzales , 486 F.3d 484, 49 7

– 9 8

(9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

Finally, we reject Higarera

- Segura’s argument that this case is “capable of

repetition, yet evading review.” United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co. , 391 F.3d

1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our conclusion that

the present case is moot in light of Higarera

- Segura’s reentry does not necessarily

1 We grant the government’s unopposed motion to take judicial notice of, inter alia, the indictment charging Higarera

- Segura with illegal reentry. We also grant Higa r era

- Segura’s motion to supplement the administrative record, as t he
government concedes that we may consider the documents attached to the motion for purposes of determining our jurisdiction.3

foreclose our review of a future challenge to a reinstatement decision. See, e.g.

,

Villa

- Anguiano v. Holder , 727 F.3d 873, 877, 882 (9th Cir. 2013) ( reviewing a

challenge to a reinstatement order where the petitioner had been physically

removed). Moreover, as Higarera

- Segura acknowledges, the issue he seeks to raise

is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) bars sua sponte reopening of removal proceedings

wher e a motion for such relief is filed prior to reinstatement. If DHS again

reinstates Higarera

- Segura’s removal, he may raise that issue in a petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the denial of a

motion to reopen. 2

DISMIS SED.

2 Here, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued such an order, but Higarera

Segura did not petition for review of it.