Case Name: Jose Alfonso TIJERINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DISTRICT DIRECTOR U.S. IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-26
Citations: 585 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 13-55655
Parties: Jose Alfonso TIJERINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DISTRICT DIRECTOR U.S. IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Jose Alfonso TIJERINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DISTRICT DIRECTOR U.S. IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-55655.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided Nov. 26, 2014.
Jose Alfonso Tijerina, pro se.
Dorothy C. Kim, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. 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
Jose Alfonso Tijerina appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
In his petition, Tijerina contended that he was improperly removed from the United States without receiving a hearing on his claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. The district court properly declined to entertain Tijerina's petition because the sole means to challenge an order of removal is by filing a petition for review with the appropriate court of appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9); Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622 (9th Cir.2012).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.