Case Name: Francisco Javier AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-23
Citations: 396 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 08-71365
Parties: Francisco Javier AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
Francisco Javier AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71365.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 23, 2010.
Sean Larkin, Law Office of Sean Larkin, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Arthur Leonid Rabin, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Francisco Javier Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security's order reinstating his 1996 deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We have jurisdiction to review the agency's compliance with the reinstatement regulations, and we deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Aguilar's contentions, the 2008 reinstatement order is valid because the record establishes that the immigration officer complied with the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 241.8. See Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (when reviewing the reinstatement decision of an immigration official, court has jurisdiction to examine whether the petitioner is an alien, whether the petitioner was subject to a prior removal order, and whether the petitioner re-entered illegally).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.