Opinion ID: 159162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (Supp. 1998), respondent argues that, while this court may review the propriety of the reinstatement of the 1981 deportation order, we lack jurisdiction to entertain a collateral attack on the validity of the order itself. We agree. Section 1252(d)(1) provides that a final order of removal may be judicially reviewed only if “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” Further, § 1231(a)(5) provides that a removal order that is reinstated on the basis of a subsequent illegal entry “is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” Because petitioner failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies or to timely seek review of the 1981 deportation order, we do not now have jurisdiction to review the underlying validity of that order. Cf. De Souza v. Barber , 263 F.2d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1959) (holding that alien whose deportation order had been reinstated pursuant to this section (under prior law) but who did not seek review of the order or question its validity when initially issued may not collaterally attack the order in habeas proceedings following deportation after reinstatement). We therefore do not address petitioner’s argument that the Silva injunction somehow “voided” the 1981 deportation order. -5-