Opinion
No. 05-75518.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed September 8, 2008.
Beth S. Persky, Beth Sarla Persky Law Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Agency No. A78-089-531.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jose Dolores Mena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's decision to reinstate his prior removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Ram. v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Mena's challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) is foreclosed by Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 498 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (concluding that a previously removed alien who reenters the country unlawfully is not entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge on whether to reinstate a prior removal order).
Mena is precluded from applying for adjustment of status. See Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) ( 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) bars an alien who has had a removal order reinstated from adjustment of status).