Martin Pimental-Lopez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN PIMENTAL-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72363
Agency No. A077-142-054
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Argued and Submitted October 2, 2017
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and LAMBERTH,** District Judge.
Martin Pimental-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) February 12, 2013 order
FILED
DEC 07 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge for
the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

reinstating his February 4, 1999 order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Review of a reinstated order of removal is typically “limited to confirming
the agency’s compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v.
DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Morales Izquierdo v.
Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 498 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Pimental-Lopez does not
challenge any of the three requirements for reinstatement of the February 4, 1999
removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1137.
Instead, he challenges the underlying removal order on several legal and
constitutional grounds.
The governing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) states that the “petition to
review [orders of removal] must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the
final order of removal.” Pimental-Lopez’s order of removal was entered against
him on February 4, 1999. He did not challenge that removal order until the instant
appeal, which he filed on May 20, 2014. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to
review his challenges to the underlying order of removal. In light of this
disposition, we need not address Pimental-Lopez’s remaining arguments.
PETITION DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --