Case Name: Claudia Galindo DE SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent; Claudia Galindo De Sevilla, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-23
Citations: 265 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: Nos. 03-72549, 05-74754
Parties: Claudia Galindo DE SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Claudia Galindo De Sevilla, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
Claudia Galindo DE SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Claudia Galindo De Sevilla, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 03-72549, 05-74754.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2008.
Filed Jan. 23, 2008.
Maria E. Andrade, Esq., Law Offices of Maria E. Andrade, Boise, ID, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the Deputy Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esq., Helena, MT, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Claudia Galindo De Sevilla appeals a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement decision to reinstate her pri- or removal order.
We do not have jurisdiction to review Galindo's appeal of her April 2000 expedited order of removal.
The reinstatement order did not violate Galindo's due process rights. In Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, we held that "[r]einstatement of a prior removal order— regardless of the process afforded in the underlying order—does not offend due process because reinstatement of a prior order does not change the alien's rights or remedies."
Galindo's claim that her removal order was invalid is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and her petition for review of the reinstatement order is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. See, e.g., Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 496 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004); Alvarenga-Villalobos v. INS, 271 F.3d 1169, 1170 (9th Cir.2001).
. Morales-Izquierdo, 486 F.3d at 496.
. See id. at 497.