Case Name: Rafael MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Elaine C. DUKE, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 698 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 16-60421 Summary Calendar
Parties: Rafael MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Elaine C. DUKE, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Respondent
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
Rafael MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Elaine C. DUKE, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Respondent
No. 16-60421 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed September 28, 2017
Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Sheridan Gary Green, Sheridan Green Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner
■Edward C. Durant, Thomas Ward Hus-sey, Director, David Michael McConnell, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Loretta Lynch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Martinez-Rodriguez (Martinez) petitions for review of an order of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstating his prior deportation order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Martinez contends that (1) he reentered lawfully and the immigration officer violated a reinstatement regulation by failing to verify his claim that he had been admitted lawfully; (2) the immigration officer violated his right to due process during the reinstatement proceeding; and (3) reinstatement constituted a gross miscarriage of justice because he was not removable as charged originally.
There is nothing in the administrative record demonstrating that Martinez applied for and obtained express consent to reapply for admission before he reentered, and Martinez does not argue that he applied for or obtained such express consent. Nor does he argue that the border patrol agent's permission to enter the United States was tantamount to the requisite express consent to reapply for admission. His argument, unsupported by the record, that he was admitted through the port of entry does not compel a conclusion that his reentry was not illegal. See Anderson v. Napolitano, 611 F.3d 275, 278 (5th Cir. 2010); Avalos-Martinez v. Johnson, 560 Fed.Appx. 385, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2014).
Relying on facts outside of the administrative record, Martinez contends that he was denied due process during the reinstatement proceeding. Aliens do have a Fifth Amendment right to due process in reinstated removal proceedings, Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 302 (5th Cir. 2002), but an alien must make an initial showing of substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge, De Zavala v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). Martinez has not shown that the result in this case would be different if he had been given the procedural safeguards he seeks, so his due process challenge fails. See Ojeda-Terrazas, 290 F.3d at 302.
Martinez has not shown a gross miscarriage of justice, leaving this court without authority to review his prior removal order. See Martinez v. Johnson, 740 F.3d 1040, 1042 (5th Cir. 2014); Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508 513-14 (5th Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.