Opinion
No. 04-71179.
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2008.
Filed January 23, 2008.
Dan R. Larsson, Larsson Immigration Group, PC, Bend, OR, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Portland, OR, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A78-261-228.
Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Antonia Chavez Meraz appeals a United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement decision to reinstate her prior order of removal. She also claims that she is eligible for an adjustment of status.
We do not have jurisdiction to review Chavez's appeal of her April 2000 expedited order of removal. Chavez is not eligible for an adjustment of status because she reentered the United States without permission after being removed.
See, e.g., Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 496 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004); Alvarenga-Villalobos v. INS, 271 F.3d 1169, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001).
See Gonzales v. Dep't. of Homeland Sec., 508 F.3d 1227, 1241 (9th Cir. 2007); Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); In re Totres-Garcia, 23 I. N. Dec. 866, 870-73 (BIA 2006).
The reinstatement order did not violate Chavez's due process rights. In Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, we held that "[r]einstatement of a prior removal order — regardless of the process afforded in the underlying order — does not offend due process because reinstatement of a prior order does not change the alien's rights or remedies."
Morales-Izquierdo, 486 F.3d at 496.
See id. at 497.
Chavez's claim that her removal order was invalid is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and her petition for review of the reinstatement order is DENIED.