NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICOLAS GARCIA, AKA Nicolas Garcia 

Juarez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72190 

Agency No. A088-720-534 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Department of Homeland Security

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Nicolas Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an

order by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reinstating a 2009

removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review of DHS’ 

 

* 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

OCT 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72190 

reinstatement order is “limited to confirming the agency’s compliance with the 

reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 

1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo due process claims and questions 

of law. Id. at 1136. We deny the petition for review.

DHS did not err in issuing Garcia’s reinstatement order where the record 

shows Garcia is an alien, he was subject to a prior order of removal, and he 

illegally reentered the United States subsequent to that order. See id. at 1137 

(court’s jurisdiction over a reinstatement order is limited to reviewing “three 

discrete inquiries an immigration officer must make in order to reinstate a removal 

order: (1) whether the petitioner is an alien; (2) whether the petitioner was subject 

to a prior removal order, and (3) whether the petitioner re-entered illegally.” 

(citation omitted)). 

We are not persuaded by Garcia’s contention that his reentry in May 2013 

was legal, where he was prohibited from entering, attempting to enter, or being in 

the United States for 10 years from his 2009 removal order, and he has not 

demonstrated that he requested and obtained permission from the Attorney General 

to reapply for admission prior to his reentry, as the record shows he was warned he 

must do. See Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder, 725 F.3d 950, 952 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(although procedurally regular, alien’s reentry was not legal without valid 

documentation that permitted reentry). Accordingly, Garcia cannot demonstrate 
3 15-72190 

that DHS violated due process in reinstating his 2009 removal order, 

notwithstanding any alleged errors in Garcia’s June 22, 2015, statement, where he 

cannot show his reentry was legal. See id. at 954 (petitioner must show a due 

process violation and prejudice to obtain relief).

Garcia also cannot demonstrate DHS violated due process in declining to 

grant him a reasonable fear interview, where Garcia cannot show prejudice 

because he has not articulated a plausible claim for asylum and related relief. See 

id. (to show prejudice, petitioner must present a plausible scenario in which the 

outcome would have been different if proper process was provided).

Garcia’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 9) and motion 

to transmit physical and documentary exhibits (Docket Entry No. 10) are denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.