Edgar Quix v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Edgar Quix v. Loretta E. Lynch

667 F. App'x 952

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

Docket15-70303

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 952 (Edgar Quix v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edgar Quix v. Loretta E. Lynch, 667 F. App'x 952 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Edgar Roberto Quix, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) January 23, 2015, order reinstating his 2011 order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review is “limited to confirming the agency’s compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). The underlying reinstated removal order may only be reviewed for a “gross miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1138. We deny the petition for review.

Quix does not dispute the factual predicates for reinstatement. See id. at 1137 (listing the three determinations underlying a reinstatement order' that may be reviewed). Quix has not established a gross miscarriage of justice in his underlying removal proceedings based on his transfer to detention in another state or his prior attorney’s alleged failure to challenge the transfer as a due process violation. See id. at 1138.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided byl Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Edgar Roberto Quix, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) January 23, 2015, order reinstating his 2011 order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review is “limited to confirming the agency’s compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). The underlying reinstated removal order may only be reviewed for a “gross miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1138. We deny the petition for review.

Quix does not dispute the factual predicates for reinstatement. See id. at 1137 (listing the three determinations underlying a reinstatement order' that may be reviewed). Quix has not established a gross miscarriage of justice in his underlying removal proceedings based on his transfer to detention in another state or his prior attorney’s alleged failure to challenge the transfer as a due process violation. See id. at 1138.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided byl Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgar-quix-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack