Opinion ID: 1468106
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Collateral Review of the Underlying Deportation Order.

Text: Petitioner asks us to vacate the reinstatement order also on the ground that the underlying deportation proceeding deprived him of due process. However, the reinstatement of removal statute expressly prohibits us from giving petitioner a second bite at the apple. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) ([T]he prior order of removal. . . is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. . . .); Fernandez-Vargas, 548 U.S. at 34-35, 126 S.Ct. 2422. Petitioner had the right to challenge the validity of the original deportation proceeding in a direct appeal to the BIA, but he did not exercise it. This outcome does not offend due process because, regardless of the process afforded in the underlying order, reinstatement of the prior deportation order does not alter petitioner's legal condition. Morales-Izquierdo, 486 F.3d at 497. The statute does not penalize an alien for the reentry (criminal and civil penalties do that). Fernandez-Vargas, 548 U.S. at 44, 126 S.Ct. 2422. It merely gives effect to a final order issued after a formal hearing before an immigration judge. The purpose is to stop an indefinitely continuing violation that the alien himself could end. . . by voluntarily leaving the country. Id. As the Ninth Circuit put it, [w]hile aliens have a right to fair procedures, they have no constitutional right to force the government to re-adjudicate a final removal order by unlawfully reentering the country. Morales-Izquierdo, 486 F.3d at 498. In seeking to set aside the reinstated deportation order, petitioner relies on United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987). However, that case recognized an alien's right to attack collaterally a prior deportation order only in the context of a subsequent criminal proceeding for illegal reentry where the prior deportation is an element of the crime, and where direct judicial review of the original proceeding was not available due to procedural defects. Id. at 838-39 & 839 n. 17, 107 S.Ct. 2148.