Case Name: Juan Manuel ANGULO-MORGAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-23
Citations: 473 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 06-72089
Parties: Juan Manuel ANGULO-MORGAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Juan Manuel ANGULO-MORGAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 23, 2012.
Murray D. Hilts, Esq., Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, John D. Williams, Esq., Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, 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
Juan Manuel Angulo-Morgan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's reinstatement of a prior order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Our review of a reinstatement order is limited to the agency's compliance with the reinstatement regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 1241.8. Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Security, 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.2008) (listing the three determinations underlying a reinstatement order that may be reviewed). Anglo-Morgan does not challenge the agency's compliance with the reinstatement regulations. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.