Case Name: Jose Manuel HUERTA-CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 13-72789
Parties: Jose Manuel HUERTA-CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
Jose Manuel HUERTA-CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72789
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
Filed August 02, 2016
Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jose Manuel Huerta-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") order reinstating his 1997 exclusion order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Based on the transcript dated January 16, 1997, Huerta-Carrillo has not established a gross miscarriage of justice in his initial exclusion proceedings. See id. at 1138 (a petitioner may not obtain collateral review of the underlying order being reinstated unless he demonstrates "a gross miscarriage of justice" in the initial removal proceedings).
We lack jurisdiction to review Huertar-Carrillo's contentions related to the underlying 2007 and 2011 Board of Immigration Appeals' decisions because this petition for review is not timely as to those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. .
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. The government has not contested the authenticity of the January 16, 1997, transcript included in Huerta-Carrillo's opening brief.