Court Opinion

ID: 9908720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 18:00:53.547432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:29.088110
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIAS VELAZQUEZ-MANZANALES,                     No. 21-443
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A075-105-177
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted December 7, 2023**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Elias Velazquez-Manzanales petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final removal order affirming an Immigration

Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen his prior removal proceedings, which

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
included a 1998 removal order and a 2018 reinstated removal order. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.1 Because the parties are

familiar with the facts, we need not recount them here.

      “Although we have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen a

reinstated removal order for legal or constitutional error, our review is generally

limited to ascertaining that the BIA was required to deny such a motion for lack of

jurisdiction.” Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 54 F.4th 634, 638 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal

citations omitted). As we held in Cuenca v. Barr, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)

“unambiguously bar[s] reopening a reinstated prior removal order” if an individual

has unlawfully reentered the United States after having been removed. 956 F.3d

1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2020) (as amended). “Accordingly, the BIA is required to

deny such a motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction.” Bravo-Bravo, 54 F.4th at

638 (citing Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland, 32 F.4th 806, 810 (9th Cir. 2022)).

      The BIA was required to deny Velazquez-Manzanales’s motion to reopen

for lack of jurisdiction. Velazquez-Manzanales was removed from the United

States in April 1998 and conceded that he unlawfully reentered the country two

1
  We also deny the government’s outstanding motion to supplement the record with
the docket and dismissal order from the district court proceedings regarding the
prosecution of Velazquez-Manzanales for illegal reentry. The events in the docket
and the dismissal order referenced in the government’s briefing are already
included in the administrative record. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court of
appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the
order of removal is based.”).

                                         2                                    21-443
weeks later. In October 2018, the 1998 removal order was reinstated.2 Therefore,

Velazquez-Manzanales’s motion falls under the purview of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5),

precluding the reopening of the 1998 removal order. See Cuenca, 956 F.3d at

1088. Because of this jurisdictional bar, the BIA did not err in declining to address

Velazquez-Manzanales’s request that his removal proceedings be reopened for him

to apply for cancellation of removal. See Vega-Anguiano v. Barr, 982 F.3d 542,

551 (9th Cir. 2019) (as amended) (“An alien removed under a reinstatement order

is ineligible for [cancellation of removal].”).

      Velazquez-Manzanales’s remaining arguments are not properly before this

court. His collateral attack on the initial removal order and arguments pertaining

to the reinstatement order can only be considered in a petition for review of the

reinstatement order or proceeding itself. See Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 54 F.4th

597, 605 (9th Cir. 2022). However, Velazquez-Manzanales did not timely petition

for review of the reinstatement order; the current petition solely concerns the

denial of his motion to reopen. See Vega-Anguiano, 982 F.3d at 545. Therefore,

he “cannot raise arguments that are available for an alien who is challenging a

2
  Velazquez-Manzanales’s argument that section 1231(a)(5) does not apply here
because the government has not “executed” the reinstatement order is foreclosed
by Cuenca. 956 F.3d at 1082, 1088. Velazquez-Manzanales received a written
determination and was given an opportunity in October 2018 to make a statement
contesting that determination; his removal order was reinstated, triggering the
jurisdictional bar.

                                          3                                  21-443
reinstatement proceeding or reinstatement order.” Perez-Camacho, 54 F.4th at

607.

       PETITION DENIED.

                                      4                                 21-443