Case Name: Oscar Gerardo HERRADA-RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-24
Citations: 556 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 12-73685
Parties: Oscar Gerardo HERRADA-RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 556
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
Oscar Gerardo HERRADA-RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73685.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
Oscar Gerardo Herrada-Ramos, Fullerton, CA, pro se.
John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Oscar Gerardo Herrada-Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico petitions pro se for review of the Department of Homeland Security's reinstatement of his 1993 order of deportation. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Herrada-Ramos' challenge to the reinstatement of his 1993 deportation order because he does not dispute the factual predicates for reinstatement, see Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't. of Homeland Sec., 589 F.3d 1183, 1137 (9th Cir.2008) (listing the three determinations underlying a reinstatement order that may be reviewed), nor does he allege a gross miscarriage of justice in the underlying 1993 deportation proceedings, see id. at 1138 (while a petitioner is generally prevented from collaterally attacking an underlying deportation order on constitutional or legal grounds, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits some measure of review if he can demonstrate a "gross miscarriage of justice" in the underlying proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.