### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Cir c uit

No. 18-2886

V I C T OR M AR

T I N V I L L A S E R

R AN O , Petitioner,

v.

W I L L I AM P. B AR

R , Attor ney Gener al of the Uni ted S tates, Respondent.

O n Peti t i o n fo r R ev i ew o f a Fi na l R emo v a l Order
o f the U .S . Depa rtment o f Ho mel a nd S ecuri ty.

A 0 7 3 3 6 0 7 7 7

A RGU E D M ARC H 26, 2019

— D E C I D E D M A Y 9, 2019

Befor e B AU E R

, R OVN E R

, and B RE N NAN

, Circuit Judges

. R OVN E R , Cir cuit Judge. In 2007, Vi ctor Mar ti n Vi l la S er r ano (“Vi lla”) r e e n t e r e d the Uni ted S tates a fter hav ing been remov ed i n 2005. When he c ame to the attenti on of the gov er nment i n 2018, a depor tati on offi cer for U.S

. Immi gr ati on a nd Customs Enfor cement (“ICE”) det er mined that Vi lla had2 No. 18-2886
i llegally r eenter ed t he Uni ted S tates and w as subj ect to
r einstatement of the pr i o r r emov al or der

. Vi lla r ai ses a few legal challenges to that conclusi on, pr i mar i ly contendi n g that ther e i s no lawful pr i or or der of r emov al because the or i gi nal “Noti ce to Appear ” w as legally d efi c i ent and the i mmi gr ati on j udge ther efor e lacked jur i sdi cti on to enter the or der of

r emov al. Because w e lack j ur i sdi cti on to r ev i ew the under lyi ng
or der of r emov al, w e di smi ss the peti ti on for r ev i ew
. I. Vi lla, a nati v e and ci ti zen of Mexi co, or i gi nally enter ed the Uni ted S tates i n Mar c h 1988 wi thout inspecti on or admi ssi on by an i mmigr a ti on offi cer
. He adj u sted hi s status to that of a lawful per manent r esi dent in August 1 9 95. Appr oxi mately nine y ear s later

, he w a s conv i cted in state cour t of p ossessi on
o f cocaine, and sentenced to a y ear in pr i son. On Jan u a r y 1 2 , 2005, the Depar tment of Homeland S ecur i ty (“DHS ”) ini ti ated

r e mo v a l pr oceedings agai nst Vi lla by ser v ing hi m wi th a Noti ce to Appea r (“Noti ce”). The Noti ce char ged that he w as subj ect to r emov al under8 U.S

. C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii i ) because, after a dmi s si on, he had been c onv i cted of an aggr av a ted felony
as defined i n 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). The Noti ce di r ected hi m to appear befor e an immi gr ati on j udge a nd li sted an addr ess for the hear i ng. But on the pr e-pr inted lines for “date” and “ti me,” the N oti ce pr ov i ded only “on a date to be set,” and “at a ti me to be set.” Admi n. R. at 23–25. Vi lla does not di spute that the I mmi gr ati on Cour t later
ser v ed on hi m a N oti ce of Hear ing that speci fi ed the date and ti me of hi s fi r st hear i ng. On Febr u a ry 9, 2 005, he appear ed a t th e r emov al hear i ng and the i mmi gr ati on j u dge enter ed anNo. 18-2886 3

or der of r emov al. Vi lla w a i v ed hi s r i ght to appeal that deci si on and a few weeks l ater

, he w as r emov ed to Mexi co. The r ecor d contai ns no cor r obor ati on of when, how or wher e h e r eenter ed the Uni ted S tates, but accor din g to Vi lla, he r etur ned someti me i n 2007, cr ossing the bor der on foot at an unspeci fi ed locati on. After r eenter i ng, h e di d not come to the attenti on of i m m i gr a ti on author i ti es unti l 2018. On July 31 of that y ear , DHS s er v ed hi m wi th a Noti ce of Intent/Deci si on to Rei nstate Pr i or Or der of Remov al (“ Deci si on to Rei nstate”). Ci ti ng 8 U.S

. C. § 1231(a)(5) a n d 8 C.F .R. § 241.8 a s author i ty , the Deci si on to Rei nstate appr i s ed Vi lla that D HS inte n de d to rei nstate the Febr uar y 9, 2005 r emov al or der (“2005 Or der ”) because Vi lla had i l legally r eenter ed the Uni ted S tates on an unknown date at a n unknown place after p r ev i ously hav ing been remov ed. The Deci si on t o Rei nstate adv i s ed Vi lla that he could contest the deter minati on that he w as r emov able under the p r i or or der by maki ng an or al or wr i tten statement but that he w as not enti tled to a hear ing befor e an i mmi gr ati on j udge. Ther eafter , Vi lla fi led thi s peti ti on for r ev i ew
. II. In hi s Peti ti on for Rev i ew , Vi lla c ont ends that the 2005 Or der w as v oi d because i t w a s enter ed ultra v ires , and ther efor e may not be r einsta t e d u n d er 8 U.S

. C. § 1231(a)(5). He also

ar gues that the 2005 remov a l pr oceedi ngs under 8 U.S

. C. § 1 229a wer e nev er pr oper ly ini ti ated and that subj ec t m atter j ur i sdi cti on fai led to v est wi th the i mmi gr ati on j udge because hi s Noti c e to Appear d id n o t c ontai n all of the r equi r ed i nfor m ati on. He bases hi s ar guments lar gely on the S up r eme Cour t’s r ecent decis i on in Pereira v
. Sessions , 138 S

. Ct. 2105 (2018). The gov er nment r esponds that thi s cour t lacks j u r i sdi c-4 No. 18-2886
ti on to consi der any challenges to an under lyi ng r emov al or der i n a r ei nstatement case, and that, in any ev ent, Vi lla fai led to ti mely challenge the 2005 Or d er and f a i led to exhaust admini str ati v e r emedi es. B y the gov er nment’s count, ther e ar e at least thr ee b ar s to t h i s cour t consi d er ing the v ali di ty of the 2005 Or der

. Th e gov er nment also a sser ts that, i f Vi lla w er e able to
ov er come those bar s to r ev i ew , his clai m w ould fai l on the
mer i ts. W e hav e the author i ty and the obli gati on in ev e r y c a se to
assess ou r o w n j ur i sdi cti on, and we under take thi s rev i ew de
novo
. Muratoski v
. Ho l d e r, 622 F .3d 824, 829 (7th Ci r
. 2010); Gattem v
. Gonzales , 4 12 F .3d 758, 7 62 (7th Ci r
. 2005). The statute pr ov i d ing for r ei nstatement of pr i or or der s o f remov al speci

fi es: If the Attor ney Gener al fin ds that a n ali en has

r eenter ed the Uni ted S tates i llegally afte r h a v ing been r emov ed or hav in g depar ted v oluntar i ly , under an or der of r emov al, the prior order of removal i s r ei nstated fr om i ts or i gi n al d ate and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the a li en i s no t e l igible and m ay not apply for any r eli ef under thi s chapter , and the ali en shall be remov ed u nder the pr i or or der at any ti me after the r eentr y
. 8 U.S .C. § 1 2 3 1 ( a)(5) (emphasi s added). Under the plain language of this p r ov i si on, w e lack j ur i sdi c ti on to r ev i ew the under lyi ng pr i or or der of r emov al, in thi s case, the 2005 Or der

. Cordova-Soto v

. Holder, 732 F .3d 789, 793 (7th Ci r
. 2013); T orresT ristan v
. Holder, 656 F .3d 653, 656 (7th Ci r
. 20 1 1 )

. See also Fernandez-V

ar gas v
. Gonzales , 5 4 8 U.S

. 30, 34–35 (2006) ( theNo. 18-2886 5

cur rent v er si on of the rei ns t a t ement statute pr ov i d es for the br oadest use o f r e in s t a t e ment, applyi ng to all i llegal r eentr ants, and expli ci tly i nsulating r e m o v a l or der s fr om r ev i ew , whi le also gener ally for eclosing di scr eti onar y r eli ef fr om the ter ms o f the r ei nstatement or der ); Mendoza v
. Sessions , 891 F .3d 6 72, 679 (7th Ci r . 2018) (same). W e do, how ev er

, hav e j ur i s di cti on to consi der the r einstatem e n t o r d e r i t s e l f

. T o r re s

- T r i s t a n , 6 5 6 F

. 3 d a t 6 5 6 ; 8 U.S

. C. § 1252(a). “Judi ci al r ev i ew of a r ei nstatement or der extends only to whether the r ei nstatement or der w as pr oper ly enter ed.” T

orre s -T ristan , 656 F

. 3d at 656. Rei nstatement pr ocedur es ar e li m i ted in scope. Gomez-Chavez v
. P erryman , 308 F .3d 796, 801 (7th Ci r
. 2002). In deter m inin g whether an ali en i s s ubj ect to r emov al by r ei nstatement, the i mmi gr ati on offi cer must deter min e: (1) Whether the alie n has been subj ect to a p r i or
or der of remov al. The i mmi gr ati on offi cer m ust obtai n the p r io r or der of exclusi on, depor tati on, or
r emov al r elati ng to the ali en. (2) The i denti ty of the ali en, i .e., whether the ali en i s i n fact an ali en who w as pr e v io u sly r emov ed, or who depar ted v oluntar i ly whi le under an o r d er of exclusi on, depor tati on, or r emov al. ... (3) Whether the alie n u nlawfully r eenter ed the Uni ted S tates. ... 8 C.F

. R. § 241.8(a). See also Gomez-Chavez, 308 F .3d a t 801 ( to enter an or der r ei nstati ng a pr i or or der , the DHS m u s t d eter

mine: the i denti ty of the ali en; whether he or she w as subj ect to6 No. 18-2886

a pr i or r em o v a l o r d e r ; and the ter ms on whi ch he or she left and r eenter ed the countr y). In thi s c a s e, th e i m m i g r ati on offi cer obtai n ed the 2005 Or der under whi ch Vi lla w as pr e v io u s ly r emov ed, deter min ed that Vi lla w as the s ame per son who had been remov ed under that Or der , a n d then deter mined that Vi lla had unlawfully r eenter ed the Uni ted S tates. Indeed, Vi lla d oes not di s pute that he i s the ali en r efer enced in the 2005 Or der , that h e w as pur por tedly subj ect to remov al under the 2005 Or der , that he pr e v iously w as r emov ed under that Or d er , a nd that he r eenter ed wi thout a l a wful basi s. He contends, nev er theless, that the 2005 Or der w as v oi d fr om i ts incepti on, and the i mmi gr ati on j udge had no j ur i s di cti on t o enter i t. He ar gues, in essence, that the 2005 Or der m ay not be r ei nstated be c a us e t h er e i s no v ali d pr i or or der to r ei n state. In or der to av oi d the jur i sdi cti onal bar that i s patent in the
s tatute, Vi lla ar gues that he “ does not seek r ev i e w o f a n
unr ev i ew able r emov al or der , ” but rather r e q u e sts that “the Cour t r ecogni ze no v ali d or der ev er exi sted.” Br i ef of Peti

ti oner , at 6. H e suggests that “ther e i s no u nder lyi ng r emov al
o r d e r because r emov al pr oceedi ngs under 8 U.S .C. § 1229 a
nev er took p lace.” Br i ef of Peti ti oner a t 7

. S e e also Reply Br i ef at 2 (wher e Vi lla contends that he “i s not r equesting the Cour t
r ev i ew an old or der on i ts mer i ts,” b u t instead “chal l e n g e s whether ther e i s actually a pr i or r emov a l or der agai nst hi m.”). Vi lla i s not clai ming that the 2005 Or der li ter ally d oes n ot exi st but r a ther i s ar gui n g that i t i s not v a l id a nd nev er w a s v ali dNo. 18-2886 7
because of d efects i n the Noti c e to Appea r
. 1 Thi s ci r c ular

ar gument ask s the cour t to bypass the jur i sdi cti onal b ar on
r ev i ewing under lyi ng or d er s in r ei nstatement p r oceedi ngs b y
r ev i ewing the under lyi ng or der and finding i t v oi d. W e decline thi s inv i tati on. Vi lla r eli es on thi s cour t’s opi ni on in M ejia G alin d o v
. Sessions , 897 F .3d 894 (7th Ci r
. 2018), for the pr oposi ti on that,
ev en i n a case wher e w e lack j ur i sdi cti on to r ev i ew a n or der of

r emov al, we h av e the pow er to unwind a legal er r or that
cr eated the j ur i sdi cti onal defect. Vi lla ov er reads Mejia Galindo , whi ch i s d i sti ngui shable on a number of gr ounds. In that c ase,
an i mmi gr ati on j u dge found that Mej i a Galindo w a s no t
r em o v a b l e and declined to enter an or der of r emov a l. The gov er nment appealed to the Boar d of Immi gr ati on A p p eals (“BIA” or “Boar d”) , w h ich r ev er sed and found that Mej i a Galindo w as r emov able. B ut instead of rema n di ng f or the i mmi gr ati on judge to enter a n or der of r emov al, the BIA pur po r t e d to enter an or der of r emov al on i ts own author i ty

. Mej i a Galindo then ti mely p eti ti oned thi s cour t for r ev ie w of the B IA’s or der

. 897 F .3d at 895–96. W e noted our j ur i sdi cti on to rev i ew fi n a l or der s of r emov al under 8 U.S

. C. § 1 252 ( a)(1), but w e found that the Boar d lacked any statutor y or r egulator y author i ty to enter a r emov al or der in the fi r st instance. Because

1 Vi l l aa tta ched the purpo rtedl y v o i d 2 00 5 Order to hi s o peni ng b ri ef. He do es no t di spute tha t an i mmi gra ti o n judge hel d a hea ri ng a nd entered a n o rder; he a sserts i nstea d tha t defects i n the No ti ce to A ppea r depri v ed the i mmi gra ti o n j udge o f j u ri sdi cti o n to h o l d the hea ri ng a nd enter the o rder, renderi ng the order v o i d fro m i ts i ncepti o n, a co ncl usi o n whi ch i s i mpo ssi b l e to rea ch wi tho ut rev iewi ng the 2 0 0 5 Order a n d the pro ceedi ngs tha t l ed to i ts entry.8 No. 18-2886
ther e w as n o final or der of r emov al, w e l acked j u r i sdi c ti on to
r ev i ew the mer i ts of the BIA’s or der

. 8 97 F .3d a t 8 97–98. But w e also found that our j ur i sdi cti on to c onsi der our own j u r i sdi cti on included the author i ty to v acate the BIA’s deci s io n a nd

r emand the matter to a d d r e ss the l egal er r or that gav e r i se to the j ur i sdi cti onal limi tati on in the fi r st p lace. 8 97 F .3d at 898. Wi thout th a t a u thor i ty , Mej i a Galindo w ould hav e b een wi thout any r emedy i n the face of the BIA’s ultra vires act. Unli ke Vi lla, Mej i a Galindo fi led hi s p e t it i o n in a ti mely
manner soon after the Boar d enter ed i ts ultra vires or der

. Vi lla

w ai ted thi r teen y ear s to challenge the 2 005 Or der , well bey ond the ti m e allotted. See 8 U.S

. C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The peti ti on for

r ev i ew must b e fi led not later than 30 days after the date of the final or der of r emov al.”). Unli ke Vi lla, Mej i a G a l indo di d not unlawfully r etur n to the Uni ted S tates after ha v i n g b een
r emov ed. Vi l la di d r etur n after p r ev i ously hav in g b een
r emov e d , and n ow br ings hi s challenge in the context of a
r einstatement pr oceedi ng, wher e our j ur i sdi cti on i s statutor i ly li m i ted to r ev i ew of the ci r cumstances of rei nstatement. Unli ke Mej i a Galindo, Vi lla di d h av e other r emedi es av ai lable to hi m,
r emedi es that he bypassed by not pur suing them in a t im e l y f a s h io n in 2005 when the or der of r emov al w a s fi r st enter ed. Vi lla’s case i s i n thi s p ostur e because of hi s unlawful r eentr y , not because of ci r cumstances bey ond hi s contr ol, as happened to Mej i a Galindo. Our r easoning in Mejia G a l i n d o has no appli cati on to the ci r cumstances her e. Because w e hav e no j ur i sdi cti on to r ev i ew the under lyi ng
or der in r ei nstatement pr oceedi ngs, w e m ust di smis s thi s appeal. W

e noted abov e that Vi lla’s challenge t o the under lyi ng 2005 Or d er w as also unti mely under 8 U.S .C. § 1 252(b)(1).No. 18-2886 9
Hi s clai m i s a lso pr ecluded by h i s fai lur e to e x h a u st admini str ati v e r emedi es under 8 U.S

. C. § 1252(d ) ( 1 ). For the sake of completeness, w e will br i efly addr ess the appli cabi li ty of Pereira to the ci r cumstances her e. In Pereira , the S upr eme C o ur t consi d er ed the nar r ow questi on of whether a noti ce to appear that does not speci fy the “ti me and place at whi ch the p r o c eedi ngs wi ll be held,” as
r equi r ed by § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i ), tr i gger s the stop-ti me r ule

. 138 S

. Ct. at 2113. The Attor n ey Gener al h as di scr eti on to cancel

r emov al and adj ust the s tatus of c er tai n nonper manent
r esi d ents who meet enumer a t ed cr i ter i a, includin g a r equi rement to be conti nually physi cally pr esent in the Uni ted S tates for not less than ten y ear s i mmedi ately pr e c e d ing the date of

an appli cati on for cancellati on of r emov al. Under the s top-ti me
r u le, the per i od of conti nuous pr esence i s deemed to end when

an ali en i s ser v ed wi th a noti c e to appea r “ u n der s ecti on 1229(a)” Pereira , 138 S

. Ct. at 2110; 8 U.S .C. §§ 1229(a) (setti ng f o r t h the for m for a noti ce to appear ); 1229a (gov er ning
r emov al pr oceedings); 1229b (gov er ning canc e llati on of

r emov al and a dj ustment of status). Because secti on 1229(a)

r equi r es a noti ce to appear to li st the date and ti me for the fi r st hear i ng, the Cour t concluded th a t a n o t i ce to appear that di d not contai n the date and ti me infor m ati on i s n o t a “ noti ce to appear under secti on 1229(a)” and s o d oes not tr i gger the s topti me r ule u nder 8 U.S .C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A). 1 3 8 S

. Ct. at 2113–14 (emphasi s added). Vi lla seeks to employ P ereira’s nar r ow holdi ng fr om the
c ontext of the stop-ti me r ule mor e br oadly to asser t that, because hi s Noti ce to Appear di d not li st the date and ti me of hi s hear i ng, hi s Noti ce to Appear d i d not v est the i mmi gr ati on10 No. 18-2886

cour t wi th j ur i sdi cti on ov er hi s case, and any or d er enter ed

w as ther efor e v oi d

. Many y ear s befo r e the Cour t deci ded Pereira, w e r ej ected th e c o nt e nti on that the fai lur e to include the date and ti me in a noti ce to appear depr i v es the i m m i gr a ti o n c o u r t of j ur i sdi cti on so long as the i mmi gr ati on cour t
ser v es noti ce of the ti me and date on the per s on named in the noti ce to appear
. Dababneh v
. Gonzales , 471 F .3d 8 06, 809 (7th Cir

. 2 0 0 6) (that the gov er nment f ulfi lled i ts obli gati ons under 8 U.S .C. § 1229 i n tw o document s r ather than one di d not depr i v e the i mmi gr ati on j udge of j ur i s di ct io n to ini ti ate
r emov al p r oceedings). Followi ng Pereira , the BIA r ej ected the

v er y a r gument r a i sed her e by Vi lla in Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N

. Dec. 441 (BIA 2018). Also after the deci si on in P ereira , the S econd, S i xth and Ninth Ci r c ui t s h a v e concluded that j ur i sdi cti on v ests wi th the im m i gr a ti on c our t wher e the mandator y infor mati on about the ti me and date of the hear ing i s absent fr om the Noti ce to Appear but i s pr ov i d ed later in a noti ce of h e a r in g i ssued by the i mmi gr ati on cour t. Banegas Gomez v
. Barr

, — F .3d —, 2 019 WL 1768 9 1 4 , * 6 –*8 (2d Ci r
. Apr

. 2 3, 2019); Hernandez-Perez v
. Whitaker , 911 F

. 3d 305, 314–15 (6th Ci r
. 2018); Karingithi v
. Whitaker , 913 F .3d 1158, 1 1 6 0

– 6 1 (9th Ci r
. 2019). T

ogether w i th Dababneh , these cases suggest that th e i mmi gr ati on j udge di d hav e j ur i sdi cti on ov er Vi lla’s 2005 pr oceedi ngs, that the entr y of the 2005 Or der w as not ultra vires , and that the 2005 Or der w a s ther efor e not v oi d. But because w e l ack j ur i sdi cti on to rev i ew the 2005 Or der , w e hav e
no occasi on to r econsi der Dababneh in li ght of Pereira , and s o
w e r eser v e that i ssue for a case in whi ch it m a t t e r s to the outcome. PETITION DIS MIS S ED.