NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ABEL HERNANDEZ NAJAR, AKA Ruben Serrano

- Serrano,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 71065 Agency No. A077

- 413

- 995

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted May 24, 2017 **
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Jose Abel Hernandez Najar , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) February 23, 2016, order reinstating his March 2, 1999, expedited removal order, and for review of an

* 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). 

# FILED

MAY 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 71065

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) April 6, 2016, determin ation under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review of the DHS’s reinstatemen t order is “limited to confirming the agency’s compliance wit h the reinstatement regulations,” Garcia de Rincon v. DHS , 539 F.3 d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008), and

w e review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Andrade

- Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. As to the DHS’s order of reinstatement, w e lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez Najar’s contention that his identity is in dispute because he did not present it to the agency

. S ee Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) ( petitioner must issues or clai ms in administrative proceedings below )

. Hernandez Najar concedes that w e lack jurisdiction to consider his collateral attack on the underlying 1999 e xpedited removal orde r, see Garcia de Rincon , 539 F.3d at 1137, and w e deny his request to reconsider our jurisdiction , s ee United States v. Gay , 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[O] ne three

- judge panel of this court
cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel. ”). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review as to the DHS’s order of reinstatement. As to the IJ’s reasonable fear determination, substantial evidence supports3 16

- 71065

the IJ’s determination that Hernandez Najar failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nex us to a protected ground.”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Hernandez Najar failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of future torture by or with the acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Andrade

– Garcia , 828 F.3d at 836

- 37. Thus, Hernandez Najar’s challenges to the IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination fail

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.