Maria Gomez-Ruiz v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part, decision not for publication. Alice M. Batchelder, Circuit Judge; Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judge and Curtis L. Collier, Chief District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Case: 14-3300

Document: 21-1

Filed: 12/08/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0908n.06

FILED

No. 14-3300
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DE JESUS GOMEZ-RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Dec 08, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A
DECISION REINSTATING AN
ORDER OF EXCLUSION AND
DEPORTATION

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; COLLIER, District Judge.

*

PER CURIAM. Maria de Jesus Gomez-Ruiz petitions for review of the government’s
reinstatement of her February 1997 order of exclusion and deportation.
Gomez-Ruiz is a native and citizen of Mexico. In 1997, she attempted to enter the United
States using a fraudulent document. On February 19, 1997, an immigration judge issued an
order of exclusion and deportation, and Gomez-Ruiz was deported that day. In 2014, after
Gomez-Ruiz was arrested in Kentucky, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated her
prior order of exclusion and deportation.
On appeal, Gomez-Ruiz argues that she was denied due process in connection with the
1997 order of exclusion and deportation. We lack jurisdiction to review this claim, however,
because the challenge to the 1997 order is untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Juarez-Chavez

*

The Honorable Curtis L. Collier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-3300

Document: 21-1

Filed: 12/08/2014

Page: 2

No. 14-3300
Gomez-Ruiz v. Holder
v. Holder, 515 F. App’x 463, 465-66 (6th Cir. 2013). Gomez-Ruiz also argues that the decision
to reinstate the 1997 order was improper because she was denied due process and the
reinstatement decision was made before she had an adequate opportunity to make a statement in
opposition.
We review de novo questions of law. Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650, 655
(6th Cir. 2010). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Id. An alien who illegally reenters the United
States after being removed under an order of exclusion or deportation can be removed by
reinstatement of the prior order. 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a). Before reinstating a prior order of
exclusion or deportation, an immigration officer must obtain the prior order, confirm the identity
of the alien, and determine that the alien unlawfully reentered the United States. 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.8(a)(1)-(3). If the officer determines that the alien is subject to removal, the officer must
provide the alien with written notice of the determination and give the alien the opportunity to
make a written or oral statement contesting the determination. 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(b).
Here, the record reflects that immigration officers obtained the 1997 order of exclusion
and deportation, confirmed Gomez-Ruiz’s identity, and determined that she had illegally
reentered the United States.

In addition, Gomez-Ruiz received proper notice of the

government’s intention to reinstate the prior order, and she did not make a statement despite
being the given the opportunity to do so before the reinstatement decision became final. Thus,
Gomez-Ruiz has not shown that she was deprived of her right to make a statement contesting the
reinstatement decision or that she was otherwise denied due process in connection with the
reinstatement of the 1997 order of exclusion and deportation.
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

-2-