Case Name: Paul T. COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 860
Docket Number: No. 07-72259
Parties: Paul T. COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 860–861

Head Matter:
Paul T. COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72259.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
Jaehoh John Suh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaehoh Suh, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.
Kristin Edison, OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Paul T. Coleman, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions for review of the Depart ment of Homeland Security's order reinstating his 1994 deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and questions of law, Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Because Coleman failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice in his initial deportation proceeding, he may not at this point collaterally attack his 1994 deportation order. See id. at 1137-38 (while a petitioner is generally prevented from collaterally attacking an underlying removal order on constitutional due process grounds, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits some measure of review if the petitioner can demonstrate a "gross miscarriage of justice" in the prior proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.