In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 18-2886 VICTOR MARTIN VILLA SERRANO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of a Final Removal Order of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. A073 360 777 ARGUED MARCH 26, 2019 — DECIDED MAY 9, 2019 Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. In 2007, Victor Martin Villa Serrano (“Villa”) reentered the United States after having been re- moved in 2005. When he came to the attention of the govern- ment in 2018, a deportation officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) determined that Villa had 2 No. 18-2886 illegally reentered the United States and was subject to reinstatement of the prior removal order. Villa raises a few legal challenges to that conclusion, primarily contending that there is no lawful prior order of removal because the original “Notice to Appear” was legally deficient and the immigration judge therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter the order of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying order of removal, we dismiss the petition for review. I. Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, originally entered the United States in March 1988 without inspection or admission by an immigration officer. He adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident in August 1995. Approximately nine years later, he was convicted in state court of possession of cocaine, and sentenced to a year in prison. On January 12, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings against Villa by serving him with a Notice to Appear (“Notice”). The Notice charged that he was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because, after admission, he had been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). The Notice directed him to appear before an immigration judge and listed an address for the hearing. But on the pre-printed lines for “date” and “time,” the Notice provided only “on a date to be set,” and “at a time to be set.” Admin. R. at 23–25. Villa does not dispute that the Immigration Court later served on him a Notice of Hearing that specified the date and time of his first hearing. On February 9, 2005, he appeared at the removal hearing and the immigration judge entered an No. 18-2886 3 order of removal. Villa waived his right to appeal that decision and a few weeks later, he was removed to Mexico. The record contains no corroboration of when, how or where he reentered the United States, but according to Villa, he returned sometime in 2007, crossing the border on foot at an unspecified location. After reentering, he did not come to the attention of immigra- tion authorities until 2018. On July 31 of that year, DHS served him with a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order of Removal (“Decision to Reinstate”). Citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.8 as authority, the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals