FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
R IC ARDO B R

AVO-B R AVO, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71042 Age n c y No. A075-265-535 ORDER AND AM ENDED OPINION

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe b ruary

15, 2022 * Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : R ic h ard R
. C lifton a nd Sa n dra S. Ikuta , C irc uit Judge s, a nd Ka re n K. C a ldwe ll, ** Distric t Judge
. Orde r; Opinion by

Judge Ikuta 

# F IL ED DEC 2 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * The Honora

ble Ka re n K. C a ldwe ll, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ke ntuc ky , sitting by de signa tion.SUMMARY * * * Immigration The panel filed: 1) an order amending the opinion filed July 18, 2022; and 2) an amended opinion denying Ricardo Bravo
- Bravo’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. In the amended opinion, the panel held that: 1) 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which generally bars reopening reinstated orders of removal, is not subject to an exception for removal orders that result in a gross miscarriage of justice; and 2) the agency lacks authority to reopen such reinstated removal orders sua spont e. Relying on Cuenca v. Barr , 956 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2020), the BIA concluded that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reopen Bravo
- Bravo’s removal order because the order had been reinstated under § 1231(a)(5). The panel explained that an alien may general ly not reopen the reinstated prior removal order or proceeding, because the BIA must deny a motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction under § 1231(a)(5), and this court will deny a petition to review that denial. Bravo
- Bravo argued that the IJ had juris diction over his motion because an alien may collaterally challenge a removal order when it results in a gross miscarriage of justice. The panel concluded that this argument was not cognizable in the context of this current appeal, explaining that an alie n may raise such a collateral attack, but only in a petition for review of a reinstatement proceeding or order. By contrast, as explained in Cuenca , Bravo
- Bravo’s motion to reopen was barred by § 1231(a)(5) such that neither the IJ nor the BIA had jurisdi ction over his collateral challenge. Second, Bravo
- Bravo argued that, because the IJ had authority under the then
applicable regulation to “reopen or reconsider any case in which he or she has made a decision,” at any time, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2020 ), the IJ retained such authority notwithstanding § 1231(a)(5). The panel disagreed, explaining that Cuenca read § 1231(a)(5) to unambiguously bar reopening a reinstated removal order and to divest the BIA of jurisdiction to reopen a removal proceeding af ter

* * * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.reinstatement. The panel further explained that, although the then
- applicable regulation gave the agency the authority to reopen cases sua sponte, that regulation did not expressly provide that such authority overrode § 1231(a)(5). Nor could it, the panel observed, given that a regulation does not trump an otherwise applicable statute unless the regulation’s enabling statute so provides.

COUNSEL Sylvia L. Esparaza, Law Office of Sylvia L. Esparaza, Las Vegas, Nevada; Kristin A. Macleod
- Ball and Trina A. Realmuto, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Brookline, Massachusetts; for Petitioner. Edward C. Durant, Attorney; Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel; John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director; Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.O RDE R

The opinion file d

on July 18, 2022, is a

m e nde d a s follows. On slip opinion pa ge 5, footnote2, a dd < The c urre nt re gula tion ha s be e n sta

y e d a nd pre l im ina

rily
e njoine d. Se e C

a t h. Le gal Immigr. N

e tw ork , Inc . v . Ex e c . Offic e for Immigr. Re v . , No. 21-00094, 2021 W

L 3609986 a

t *1 (D.D.C . Apr. 4, 2021); C e n t ro Le g al de la Raza v . Ex e c . Offic e for Immigr. Re v . , 524 F. Supp. 3d 919, 928 (N.D. C a l. 2021). W e do not e xpre ss a

vie w on the c urre nt sta

tus of the re gula

tion or theim

pa c t of the s ta y s. > . On slip opinion pa ge 11, re pla c e < form e r> with < the n-a pplic a ble > . On slip opinion pa

ge 12, de le te footnote 7. The re sponde nt’ s m otion to a m e nd (Dkt. 51) is here b y grante d in pa

rt a nd de nie d in pa

rt. The tim e to file a

pe tition for re he aring or pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc is not e xte nde d by

this a m e ndm e nt. The pe t ition for re he a ring or pe tition for
re he aring e n ba

nc is due on or be fore De c e m be r 6, 2022.O PINIO N

Unde r the Im

m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t, if a n a lie n ha s re e n te re d the Unite d State s ille ga lly

a fte r having be e n re m ove d, “ the prior orde r of re m ova l is
re insta te d from its original da

te and is not subje c t to be ing re ope ne d or re vie we d.” 8 U.S.C . § 1231(a )(5). In this c a se , a n a l ie n subje c t

to suc h a re i nsta te d re m ova l orde r c la im s the re is a

n e xc e ption to § 1231(a

)(5) for re m ova l orde rs tha t re sult in a gross m isc arria ge of justic e or a lte rnative ly , tha t the im m igration a ge nc y

ha s
a uthority to re ope n suc h re m ova l orde rs sua sponte . B e c a u se ne ithe r of the se
e xc e ptions ove rride s the una m b iguous ba

r on re ope ning in § 1231(a )(5), we de ny the a lie n’ s pe t ition for re vie w. I R ic ardo B ra vo-B ra v o se e ks re vie wof a n opinion by

the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA), whic h uphe ld a de c ision by

the im m igration judge(IJ) de ny ing his m otion to re ope n his prior re m ova l proc e e d ings. B e fore a ddre s sing the
m e rits of B ra vo-B ra vo’ s a ppe a l, we provide ba c kground re ga rding the a

pplic a ble le ga l fram e work. Afte r an a lie n ha s be e n orde re d re m ove d from the Unite d State s, the a lie n ge ne ra lly m ay file only one m otion to re ope n proc e e dings, a nd m ust do so within 90 da y s of the dat e the fina l orde r of re m ova l wa s e nte re d. 8 U.S.C
. 2§ 1229a (c )(7). 1 An a lie n m ay a lso a sk the IJ or B IA to re ope n proc e e dings sua sponte . 8 C .F.R
. §§ 1003.2(a), 1003.23(b)(1). 2 If the a lie n “ take s m a tte rs into his own ha nds a nd unla wfully re e nte rs the Unite d State s” a fte r be ing re m ove d, C ue nc a v . Barr , 956 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th C ir. 2020), a n im m igration offic e r m ay

re insta t e the prior re m o va l orde r. 8 U.S.C
.

1 The re is no tim e lim it for filing a m otion to re ope n unde r c e rta i n c irc um s ta nc e s re late d to c ha

nge d c onditions in the

c ountry to whic h the a lie n is orde re d re m ove d, or if the ba sis for re m ova l re l a te s to dom e stic viole nc e . 8 U.S.C
. § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(ii), (iv).

2 At the tim e the a g e nc y

rule d in this c a se , the a

pplic a ble re gula tion pe rm itte d a

n IJ to “upon his or her own m otion a t any tim e . . . re ope n or re c o nside r any

c a se in whic h he or she ha s m a de a de c ision.” 8 C
. F.R
. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2020). After re visions in Ja nua ry 15, 2021, the

re gula tion now sta te s tha t a n IJ m ay re ope n a c a se “ sole ly

in orde r to c orre c t a

m iniste ria l m ista

ke or ty pogra phic a l e rror in tha

t de c ision or to re issue the de c i sion to c orre c t a de fe c t in se rvic e .” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1) (2021). The c urre nt re gula

tion ha s be e n sta y e d a nd pre lim ina

rily e n j oine d. Se e C

ath. Le gal Immigr. N

e tw ork , Inc . v . Ex e c . Offic e for Immigr. Re v . , No. 21-00094, 2021 W L 3609986 a

t *1 (D.D.C . Apr. 4, 2021); C e ntro Le gal de la Raza v . Ex e c . Offic e for Immigr. Re v . , 524 F. Supp. 3d 919, 928 (N.D. C a l. 2021). W e do not e xpre ss a vie w on the c urre nt sta

tus of the re gula tion or the im

p a c t of the sta

y s. 3§ 1231(a )(5). 3 In suc h a c a se , “ the prior orde r of re m o va l is re insta t e d from its origina l da

te and is not subje c t to be ing re ope ne d or re vie we d, the a lie n is not
e ligibleand m ay

not a pply for any re lie f unde r this c ha

pte r, and the a lie n sha ll be
re m ove d unde r the prior orde r a t a ny tim e a fte r the re e ntry .” Id
. Se c tion 1231(a

)(5) “ e xplic itly

insula te s the [unde rly ing] re m o va l orde rs from
re vie w, a nd ge n e ra l ly

fore c lose s disc re tiona

ry re lie f from the te rm s of the
re insta te d orde r.” Fe r

nande z-Vargas v . Gonzale

s , 548 U.S. 30, 35 (2006). De spite this ba r, we have jurisdic tion to re vie w c e rta in c ha lle nge s to the re insta t e m e nt proc e e dings a

nd orde rs unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D) (giving c irc uit c o urts jurisdic tion to he ar “ c onstitutiona l c la im s or que stions of la w” ). First, we m ay
re vie w a n a lie n’ s c la i m s tha

t the a ge n c y

fa ile d to c om

ply with a pplic a b le
re insta te m e nt re gula

tions in c onduc ting there insta te m e n t proc e e ding. Se e Garc ia de Rinc on v . De

p ’t of Home land Se c urity , 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th C ir. 2008). Se c ond, we m a

y re vie w a n a lie n’ s “ c olla

t e ra l atta c k on the unde rly ing re m ova l

3 8 U.S.C . § 1231(a )(5) provide s: If the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l finds tha

t a n a l ie n ha s re e nte re d the Unite d State s ille ga lly

a fte r having be e n re m ove d or ha v i ng de pa rte d volunta rily , unde r an orde r of re m ova l, the prior orde r of re m ova l is re insta

te d from its original da

te and is not subje c t to be i ng re ope ne d or re vie we d, the a lie n is not e ligible and m ay not a p ply for any re lie f unde r this c ha

pte r, and the a lie n

sha ll be re m ove d unde r the prior orde r a t a ny tim e a fte r the re e ntry . 4orde r . . . if the [a lie n] c an show tha t he ha s suffe re d a

gross m isc arria ge of justic e ” in the initia l re m ova l proc e e dings. C ue nc a , 956 F.3d a

t 1087) (quoting Garc ia de Rinc on , 539 F.3d a

t 1138) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d). W hile we hav e jurisdic tion to re vie wthe re insta te m e nt orde r a

nd proc e e dings unde r the c i rc um sta nc e s de sc ribe d a

b ove , an a lie n is ba

rre d by § 1231(a )(5) from

bringing a

m otion to re ope n a

re insta te d re m ova l orde r unde r § 1229a (c )(7). Id. 4 This “ ba r is a c onse que nc e of ha

v ing re e nte re d unla

wfully ,” whic h m a ke s the a lie n

subje c t to a “ le ss fa v o ra ble le ga l re gim e ,” inc luding

“ forfe iture of the right to re ope n unde r § 1229a (c )(7).” Id. a t 1082, 1087. Suc h forfe iture “ is the c le ar im

port of the sta

tute ’ s una m biguous te xt.” Gutie rre

z-Zav ala
v . Garland

, 32 F.4th 806, 809 (9th C ir. 2022) (c iting C ue nc a , 956 F.3d a

t 1084). Ac c ordingly , the B IA is re quire d to de ny suc h a m otion to re o pe n for la c k of jurisdic tion. Id . at 810. Although we have jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of a
m otion to re o pe n a

re insta te d re m ova l orde r for le ga l or c onstitutiona l e rror, se e N ath v . Gonzale

s , 467 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th C ir. 2006) (c iting 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(2)(D)), our re vie w is ge ne ra lly lim i te d to a sc e rta i ning tha t the B IA wa s

4 The re is one e xc e ption to this ge n e ra l rule . An a lie n “ re ta ins the right c onfe rre d by

[8 U.S.C
. ] § 1229a (b)(5)(C )(ii), to se e k re sc ission of a re m o va l orde r e nte re d in abse ntia , ba se d on la c k of notic e , by filing a m o tion to re ope n ‘ a t a

ny tim e .’ ” Mille r v . Se

ssions , 889 F.3d 998, 1002–03 (9th C ir. 2018). 5re quire d to de ny suc h a m otion for la c k of jurisdic tion, se e Gutie rre z-Zav ala , 32 F.4th a t 810–11. Eve n if the B IA de n ie d the m o t ion to re ope n on nonjurisdic tiona l grounds, we do not re m and the pe tition to the a ge nc y (notwithsta

nding “ the “ ve ne ra

ble C he ne ry doc trine ” tha

t our re v ie w is ty

pic a lly lim ite d to the re a sons give n by the a ge nc y ). Id. at 810 (c iting SEC v . C he ne ry C orp. , 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943)). This is bec a use the B IA’ s de nia l of a

m otion to
re ope n a re insta t e d re m ova l orde r is “ [t] he ne c e ssa ry an d c e rta in re sult of § 1231(a )(5)’ s ba

r and our de c ision in C

u e nc a , ” and we ne e d not e nga ge in the

“ idle and use le ss form a lity ” of re m a nd. Id. (quoting N

LRB v . W y man-Gordon C

o. , 394 U.S. 759, 766 n.6 (1969) (plura lity opinion)). In sum m ary , a n a lie n m ay

file a tim e ly pe tition for re vie w of a

re insta te d
re m ova l orde r on se ve ra l grounds. 5 First, the a lie n m ay c ha lle nge e rrors or de fe c ts in the re i nsta

te m e nt proc e e ding or re insta te m e n t orde r. Se c ond, the a lie n m ay
c olla te ra lly atta c k the re m ova l orde r unde rly i ng the re insta te m e nt orde r, provide d that the a lie n c a

n c l a im the re wa s a gross m isc arria ge of justic e in the proc e e dings
re sulting in the

unde rly ing re m ova l orde r. B ut the a lie n m ay ge ne ra lly not re ope n

5 Although “ [t] h e pe tition for re vie w m ust be file d not la

te r tha n 30 da y s a fte r the date of the fina l orde r of re m ova l,” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(1), we have he ld that the thirty da y s runs from

the date of the fina l re i nsta te m e nt orde r. Ve ga-Anguiano v . Barr , 982 F.3d 542, 545 (9th C i r. 2019). 6the re insta

te d prior re m ova l orde r or proc e e ding, be c a use the B IA m

ust de ny a
m otion to re o pe n for la c k of jurisdic tion unde r § 1231(a )(5), a nd we will de ny

a pe tition to re vie wtha

t de nia l. Gutie rre

z-Zav ala , 32 F.4th a

t 810. II W e now turn to the fa c ts of this c a se . B ravo-B rav o is a nat ive and c i tiz e n of M e x ic o whose sta

tus wa s a d

juste d to tha

t of a la wful pe rm ane nt re s ide nt in 1997. Afte r his a djustm e nt of sta tus, B ravo-B ravo wa s c onvic te d of four se pa

ra te c rim e s in W a shington sta

te c ourt, inc luding for theoffe nse of c rim ina l de live ry of a
c ontrolle d substa

nc e in July

2002, s e e W a s h. R e v. C ode § 69.50.401(a )(1). B e c a use at tha t tim e the July

2002 c onvic tion qua lifie d a s a n a ggravate d fe lony unde r im m i grat i on la

w, 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(B ), B ravo-B ravo wa s the re fore
re m ova ble unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii). At the re m o va l he aring on June9, 2003, B ravo-B ra vo wa s orde re d re m ove d to M e xic o, a nd wa s subse que ntly
re m ove d. Som e tim e lat e r, B ravo-B ra vo ille ga lly re e nte re d the Unite d State s. Se e Brav o-Brav o v . Barr , 808 F. App’ x 593, 594 (9th C ir. 2020). In 2016, the gove rnm e nt de t a ine d B ra vo-B ra vo a nd re insta t e d his 2003 re m o va l orde r unde r § 1231(a )(5). Id. at

593–94.

7In Ja

nua ry 2017, B ra v o-B ra vo file d a pe tition for re vie w of the re insta te m e nt orde r. Id. at 593. B ra v o-B ravo a rgue d tha t “ the re insta

te m e n t wa s im

prope r be c a use his re e ntry

to the Unite d State s wa s not ille ga l, a nd tha t his unde rly ing
re m ova l orde r c o n stitute d a gross m isc arria ge of justic e .” Id. at 593–94. W e
re je c te d both c la im s , howe ve r, in a m e m orandum

disposition file d June 12, 2020. Id. First, we he ld tha

t B ravo-B ra vo’ s re e ntry

into theUnite d State s wa s ille ga l, be c a use he de c e ive d

the borde r c ontrol a g e nt into thinking he wa s a uthoriz e d to
e nte r the c ountry . Id. at 594. Se c ond, we he ld tha t his c olla te ra l atta c k on his prior
re m ova l orde r fa ile d. B ra vo-B ra vo ha d a rgue d tha t his prior re m o v a l orde r wa s unjust be c a

use “ his sta

te c onvic tion se rving a s the ba sis of his re m ova l wa s
e xpunge d by

the sta te c ourt, a nd be c a use this c ourt subse que ntly he ld tha t a
c onvic tion unde r W a sh. R e v . C ode § 69.50.401(a )(1) is not a

n a ggravate d

fe lony .” Id. W e re je c te d this a

rgum e nt, holding tha

t e ve n if the sta

te c ourt ha d e xpunge d B ra vo-B ra vo’ s c rim e , “ that e xpunge m e nt doe s not spe ak to the fa i rne ss of his unde rly ing re m ova l proc e e ding.” Id. Give n tha t the W a s hington c onvic t ion “ wa s
an a g grav a te d fe lony a t the tim e [B ravo-B rav o] wa s c onvic te d,” we c onc lude d the re wa s no m isc arria ge of justic e . Id. W hile B ra vo-B ra vo’ s pe tition for re vie wof the re insta te m e nt orde r and proc e e ding wa s still pe nding, B ravo-B ravo file d a m o tion with the

IJ to re ope n his
82003 re m ova l orde r and proc e e dings unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7), or in the

a lte rnative to e xe rc ise the sua sponte a uthority to re ope n the re m ova l orde r a nd proc e e dings unde r 8 C .F.R . §§ 1003.2(a), 1003.23(b)(1). In a sking the IJ to re ope n his original re m o v a l orde r and proc e e dings, B rav o-B ravo re ite ra te d the argum e nt he ha d ra ise d in his pe tition for re vie w of the re insta te d re m ova l orde r: tha

t his 2002 c onvic tion ha d be e n e xpunge d by the W a shington sta

t e c o urt a nd the offe nse
wa s no longe r c a te goriz e d a s a n a ggravate d

fe l ony . Although B ravo-B rav o
re c o gniz e d tha

t a m otion to re ope n ha d to be file d within 90 da y s a fte r the e ntry

of
a fina l orde r of re m ova l, 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7), 8 C
. F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1), he
argue d tha t the de a dline should bee quita bly tolle d. In the a l te rnat ive , B rav o-B ravo
a ske d the IJ to sua

sponte re ope n the 2003 re m ova l orde r and proc e e dings unde r 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23. In M ay 2019, theIJ de nie d the m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly an d re j e c te d B ra vo-B ra vo’ s a

rgum e nts for e quita

ble tolling. The IJ de c line d to sua sponte
re ope n the prior re m ova l orde r and proc e e dings dueto the a bse nc e of e xc e ptiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s . B ra vo-B ra vo file d a n a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l, whic h the B IA dism isse d. R e ly ing on C

ue nc a , the B IA he ld tha

t 8 U.S.C
. § 1231(a )(5) c o nstitute s
a “ pe rm a ne nt jurisdic tiona l ba

r” to re ope ning theprior re m ova l orde r, and

9the re fore the IJ la c ke d jurisdic t ion to re ope n B ravo-B ravo’ s re m ova l orde r and

proc e e dings. B ra vo-B ra vo tim e ly pe titione d for re vie w. 6 III Our jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of B rav o-B ravo’ s m otion to re o pe n is lim ite d to de te rm ining whe the r the B IA e rre d in c onc luding tha t the IJ la c ke d jurisdic tion. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D). “ Although were vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n for a

n a buse of disc re tion, pure ly le ga l que stions re c e ive de
nov o re vie w.” C

ue nc a , 956 F.3d a

t 1084. W he the r § 1231(a )(5) bars the a ge nc y from re ope ning a

prior re m ova l orde r and proc e e d ing on B ravo-B ravo’ s m o tion unde r § 1229a (c )(7) or sua sponte unde r 8 C
. F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1) a re que s tions of la w we re vie w de nov o . Id. On a ppe a l, B ra vo-B ra vo first a rgue s tha t the IJ ha d jurisdic t ion to c o nside r his m otion to re ope n

his 2003 re m ova l orde r and proc e e d ings be c a use an a l ie n m ay
c olla te ra lly c ha lle nge a

re m ova l orde r whe n it re s ults in a gross m isc arria ge of justic e . As he did in his first pe tition for re vie w of his re i nsta te m e nt proc e e ding
and orde r, B ra vo-B ra vo a rgue s tha t his initia l re m ova l orde r wa s unjust. B ut this

6 B ra vo-B ra vo file d this pe tition for re vie w in April 2020. In June 2021, B ra vo-B ra vo file d a

n unoppose d m otion to re fe r his pe tition to the Ninth C irc uit’ s M e d iation Offic e , whic h we grante d. Afte r m e diation e fforts prove d unsuc c e ssful, we re sum e d c onside ra t ion of the pe tition. 10tim e he ra ise s a ne w the ory

of injustic e : he argue s tha t his unde rly ing c onvic tion, whic h se rve d a s the sole pre dic a te for his re m ova l , wa s e xp unge d be c a use the sta

te
c ourt he ld tha

t his de fe nse c ounse l fa ile d to inform him of the im m igration
c onse q ue nc e s of his guilty

ple a , whic h am ounte d to a viola tion of his right to
c ounse l unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. W e re je c t this a rgum e nt, be c a

use it is not c ogniz a

b le in the c onte x t of this
c urre nt a ppe a l. An a lie n suc h a s B ravo-B ravo m ay m ake a c o lla te ra l atta c k

on the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r on the ground tha t it re sults in a

gross m isc arria ge of justic e , but only

in a p e tition for re v ie w of a re insta te m e nt proc e e ding or orde r. C ue nc a , 956 F.3d a

t 1087. Inde e d, B ravo-B ravo ra ise d a re late d c ha l le nge in his pe tition for re vie w of his re i nsta te m e nt orde r, whic h we re je c te d
. Brav o-Brav o , 808 F. App’ x at 594. B y

c ontra st, a s e xpla ine d in C ue nc a , B ravo-B ravo’ s m otion to re ope n a

re insta te d prior re m ova l orde r is ba rre d unde r § 1231(a)(5). Ne ithe r the IJ nor the B IA ha d jurisdic tion to a d dre ss B ravo-B ravo’ s a rgum e n ts re ga

rding the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r. Our jurisdic tion is lim ite d to de te rm ining whe the r the B IA m a de a

le ga l e rror in dism issing B rav o-B ravo’ s a p pe a l. It did not, be c a

use the B IA c orre c tly

de te rm ine d tha

t it la c ke d jurisdic tion ove r B ravo-B ravo’ s c olla te ra l
c ha lle nge .

11Se c ond, B ra vo-B ra vo a rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d in holding tha t the IJ la c ke d jurisdic tion to re o pe n his prior re m ova l orde r and proc e e dings sua sponte . B e c a

use the IJ ha d a

uthority unde r the the n-a

pplic a ble re gula tion to “re ope n

or re c onside r
any c a s e in whic h he or she ha s m a de a de c ision,” at a

ny tim e , 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2020), B ra vo-B ravo a rgue s, the IJ re ta ine d suc h a uthority in his
c a se notwithsta

nding thesta

tutory ba r in § 1231(a)(5). W e disa gre e . C

ue nc a re a d the la

ngua ge of § 1231(a )(5) “ to una m biguously ba r re ope ning a

re insta te d prior re m ova l orde r” and to dive st the B IA “ of jurisdic tion to re o pe n a

re m o va l proc e e ding a fte r re insta te m e nt of the unde rly ing
re m ova l orde r.” 956 F.3d a t 1 0 84. Although the

the n-a p plic a ble re gula t ion c ite d by B ra vo-B ra vo ga

ve the B IA and the IJ the a uthority to re ope n c a se s sua

sponte , that re g ulation did not expre ssly provide tha

t suc h a uthority ove rrode the la

ngua ge of § 1231(a )(5) pre c luding thea ge nc y from re ope ning a

re insta te d prior re m ova l orde r. Nor c ould it, given tha t “ a re gula tion doe s not trum

p an othe rwise
a pplic a ble sta tute unle s s the re gula

tion’ s e na bling sta tute so provide s.” Unite d State s v . Mae s , 546 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th C ir. 2008). This c a se is the re fore unlike Mille r , whe re a

sta tute gave a lie ns the right to se e k a m otion to re o pe n “ a t a

ny tim e if the a lie n de m onstra

te s tha t the a lie n did not re c e ive notic e ” of the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision. Se e 889 F.3d a

t 999 n.1 (c iting 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(C )(ii)). As the

12Fifth C i rc uit e xpla ine d in re je c t ing a sim i la r argum e nt re lat ing to theB IA’ s sua sponte re ope ning a

uthority , unde r § 1231(a )(5), an a lie n’ s prior re m ova l orde r and proc e e dings a

re “ ‘ not subje c t to be ing re ope n e d,’ an d the re gula tion providing the B IA’ s sua sponte re ope n ing a uthority c annot ove rride tha t c om m an d.” Rodrigue z-Saragosa v . Se

ssions , 904 F.3d 349, 355 (5th C ir. 2018). 7 PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

7 B ra vo-B ra vo urge s us to ove rrule C ue n c a be c a

use its inte rpre tation of § 1231(a )(5) is not re c onc ila ble with othe r Ninth C irc uit pre c e de nts. B e c a use we are b ound by

our pre c e de nt unle ss its re a soning is “ c le arly irre c onc ila

ble with the re a s oning of interve ning highe r a uthority ,” Mille r

v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba

nc ), we re je c t this a rgum e n t. 13