Vicente Perez-Vargas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTE PEREZ-VARGAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1101
Agency No.
A076-345-760
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted August 22, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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).
FILED
AUG 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1101
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. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(5); see also Cuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079, 1088 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding
that Ҥ 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. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Bravo-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 timely petition for review
of [the] reinstated removal order” (emphasis added)).
PETITION DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --