Perez-Vargas v. Garland

• Docket Number: 21-1101
• Decision Date: 24 August 2023
• Parties: VICENTE PEREZ-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

1

VICENTE PEREZ-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 21-1101

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 24, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted August 22, 2023^[**]

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security AgencyNo. A076-345-760

Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^[*]

Vincente Perez-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the United States Customs and Border Protection ("CBP")'s decision to decline to reopen and rescind his Final Administrative Removal Order ("FARO").We

2

dismiss the petition.

The former Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a FARO against Perez-Vargas in October 1999.The Department of Homeland Security reinstated the 1999 FARO on November 21, 2018.In August 2021, Perez-Vargas requested that CBP reopen and rescind the 1999 FARO. CBP denied the request to reopen on October 21, 2021.Perez-Vargas filed the petition for review after receiving the CBP denial letter.

CBP lacked jurisdiction to reopen the reinstated FARO.See8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5);see alsoCuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079, 1088(9th Cir.2020)(holding that "§ 1231(a)(5) bars reopening a removal order that has been reinstated following an alien's unlawful reentry into the United States").And because Perez-Vargas filed the petition for review more than 30 days after the FARO was reinstated, we lack jurisdiction to consider any collateral attack on his underlying removal order.See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);see alsoBravo-Bravo v. Garland, 54 F.4th 634, 638 &n.5(9th Cir.2022)(holding that an "alien may collaterally attack the removal order underlying the reinstatement order" if the alien "file[s] a timelypetition for review of [the] reinstated removal order"(emphasis added)).

PETITION DISMISSED.

---------

[*]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.SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

---------