Alejandro Oros-Franco v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 597 F. App'x 434 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                             MAR 13 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ALEJANDRO OROS-FRANCO,                           No. 11-71266
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A029-457-665
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 4, 2015**
    Pasadena California
    Before: FERNANDEZ, PARKER***, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Alejandro Oros-Franco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
    of the Department of Homeland Security’s April 5, 2011, reinstatement of his 1989
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
    deportation order. This Court has jurisdiction over the petition under the
    Immigration and Nationality Act as amended. 
    8 U.S.C. §1252
    . Although we review
    legal questions de novo, our review of a reinstatement order is otherwise “limited
    to confirming the agency’s compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia
    de Rincon v. DHS, 
    539 F.3d 1133
    , 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2008).
    Oros-Franco contends that the reinstatement order was not properly
    executed. Oros-Franco’s argument that the order was not properly executed is
    without merit. He provides no evidence that would overcome the presumption of
    regularity applied to the official acts of public officers. See United States v.
    Navarro-Vargas, 
    408 F.3d 1184
    , 1207 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Morales-Izquierdo
    v. Gonzales, 
    486 F.3d 484
    , 496 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“Morales points to no
    material errors in his file; nor does he explain what evidence he would have
    presented, had he been given the opportunity to do so.”)
    He next seeks to challenge his underlying 1989 deportation order. This
    challenge fails because it relies on a misreading of then-existing immigration law
    and because Oros-Franco has not shown that his original hearing before the
    immigration judge perpetrated a “gross miscarriage of justice.” See Garcia de
    Rincon, 
    539 F.3d at 1138
    .
    2
    Finally, Oros-Franco contends that because the U.S. Attorney declined to
    prosecute him for illegal re-entry, his deportation order cannot be reinstated under
    this Court’s ruling in Villa-Anguiano v. Holder. 
    727 F.3d 873
     (9th Cir. 2013). His
    reliance on Villa-Anguiano is misplaced. In that case, the agency appeared to be
    unaware of a court decision dismissing the illegal re-entry case against the
    petitioner on the merits. 727 F.3d at 879-80. In this case, the U.S. Attorney’s
    Office exercised its discretion not to prosecute Oros-Franco, and the agency was
    aware of this decision.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-71266

Citation Numbers: 597 F. App'x 434

Filed Date: 3/13/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023