CA9 on Reinstatement: Villa-Anguiano v. Holder

CA9 on Reinstatement: Villa-Anguiano v. Holder

"Alejandro Israel Villa-Anguiano (“Villa”) petitions for review of the government’s reinstatement of a removal order issued in 1997. Villa contends that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) may not deport him on the basis of his prior removal order, because a federal district court found that due process violations in his 1997 immigration hearing rendered the removal order invalid as a predicate for criminal prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.  We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a reinstatement order, see Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006); accord Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 924 (9th Cir. 2003), and retain jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) to consider “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review,” see Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2008). For the reasons stated below, we grant Villa’s petition, vacate the reinstatement order, and remand to ICE for further proceedings." - Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, Aug. 14, 2013.  [Hats off to Karla L. Kraus of San Diego!]