Case Name: Alfredo NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ, aka Alfredo Navarro Gutierrez, aka Alfredo Gutierrez Navarro, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 631 F. App'x 478
Docket Number: No. 14-70730
Parties: Alfredo NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ, aka Alfredo Navarro Gutierrez, aka Alfredo Gutierrez Navarro, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 631
Pages: 478–479

Head Matter:
Alfredo NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ, aka Alfredo Navarro Gutierrez, aka Alfredo Gutierrez Navarro, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70730.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
Jennifer R. Khouri, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Alfredo Navarro-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") May 9, 2013, order reinstating his 1999 expedited removal order. Our review is "limited to confirming the agency's compliance with the reinstatement regulations." Garcia de Rincon, v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Navarro-Gutierrez's collateral attack on his 1999 expedited order of removal. See id. at 1137-38 (our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing "three discrete inquiries an immigration officer must make in order to reinstate a removal order: (1) whether the petitioner is an alien; (2) whether the petitioner was subject to a prior removal order, and (3) whether the petitioner reentered illegally"); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A), (e).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.