NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 a n

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, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 72190

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

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

1133, 11 37 (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 wa s subject to a prior order of removal , and he

illegal ly 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 rea pply 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, 9 52 (9th Cir. 2013 )

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

documentat ion that permitted reentry ). Accordingly, Garcia cannot demonstrate3 15

- 72190

that DHS violated due process in reinstating hi s 2009 removal order,

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

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

process violation and prejudice to obtain r elief).

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 prej udice, petitioner must present a plausible scenario in which the

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

Garcia’s m otion to s upplement the r ecord (Docket Entry No. 9) and m otio n

to t ransmit p hysical and d ocu mentary e xhibits (Dock et Entry No. 10) are denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.