Case Name: Avraham MORE-YOSSEF, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-18
Citations: 486 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 09-71690
Parties: Avraham MORE-YOSSEF, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 672–672

Head Matter:
Avraham MORE-YOSSEF, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71690.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2012.
Filed Oct. 18, 2012.
Jesse Adams Moorman, III, Law Office of Judith Wood & Jesse Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Avraham More-Yossef, a native and citizen of Israel, petitions for review of an order of the Department of Homeland Security reinstating a June 10, 2007, order of removal against More-Yossef. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review reinstatements of prior orders of removal, see Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495-98 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The reinstatement order complies with immigration regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.8.
We lack jurisdiction to consider More-Yossefs collateral challenge to his prior expedited removal order. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1136, 1138-39 (9th Cir.2008).
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.