Case Name: Jaime Rodriguez CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-28
Citations: 489 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 11-71895
Parties: Jaime Rodriguez CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 226–226

Head Matter:
Jaime Rodriguez CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71895.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
Jaime Rodriguez Castillo, Fairfield, CA, pro se.
Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Laura M.L. Marol-dy, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Jaime Rodriguez Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security's order reinstating his 1998 removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Rodriguez Castillo's challenge to the reinstatement of his 1998 removal order fails because he has not established "a gross miscarriage of justice." See id. at 1137-38 (a petitioner may not obtain collateral review of an underlying removal order unless he demonstrates "a gross miscarriage of justice" in the initial removal proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.