Sanjuana Uttecht v. Janet Napolitano

Eighth Circuit

Sanjuana Uttecht v. Janet Napolitano

502 F. App'x 636

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2013

Docket12-1680

StatusUnpublished

This text of 502 F. App'x 636 (Sanjuana Uttecht v. Janet Napolitano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanjuana Uttecht v. Janet Napolitano, 502 F. App'x 636 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sanjuana Uttecht petitions for review of an order issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), reinstating a prior removal order against her. Upon careful review, we conclude that DHS properly issued the reinstatement order after confirming Uttecht’s identity and determining that she previously had been ordered removed and had not sought permission to reenter the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (if Attorney General determines that alien has illegally reentered United States after having been ordered removed, prior removal order is reinstated); 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a) (factors to determine applicability of § 1231(a)(5)); see also Ochoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review reinstatement order). We also find no merit to Uttecht’s contention that her due process rights were violated because DHS did not provide her with a certain file. See Zheng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir.2012) (due process challenge in context of immigration proceeding is reviewed de novo); Ochoa-Carrillo, 437 F.3d at 847 (to succeed on due process claim, petitioner must “prove that he was actually prejudiced by the lack of process afforded to him”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sanjuana Uttecht petitions for review of an order issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), reinstating a prior removal order against her. Upon careful review, we conclude that DHS properly issued the reinstatement order after confirming Uttecht’s identity and determining that she previously had been ordered removed and had not sought permission to reenter the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (if Attorney General determines that alien has illegally reentered United States after having been ordered removed, prior removal order is reinstated); 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a) (factors to determine applicability of § 1231(a)(5)); see also Ochoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review reinstatement order). We also find no merit to Uttecht’s contention that her due process rights were violated because DHS did not provide her with a certain file. See Zheng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir.2012) (due process challenge in context of immigration proceeding is reviewed de novo); Ochoa-Carrillo, 437 F.3d at 847 (to succeed on due process claim, petitioner must “prove that he was actually prejudiced by the lack of process afforded to him”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 F. App'x 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanjuana-uttecht-v-janet-napolitano-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack