Martinez-Merino

Opinion by Judge NOONAN; Concurrence by Judge PAEZ.

In this converted petition for review of the order reinstating his removal from the country, Ranulfo Martinez-Merino (Martinez) challenges the validity of his underlying removal proceedings. Holding that Martinez has not alleged the deprivation of any constitutional or statutory right to be free from the restraint imposed by the reinstatement order, we deny his petition.

ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

In the absence of any evidentiary hearing in, or findings by, the district court, we summarize only the allegations of the petitioner and the procedural record.

Martinez is a native and citizen of Mexico and a member of an indigenous minority group known as Triqui. His primary language is Triqui. He has a limited knowledge of Spanish.

Martinez entered the United States without inspection in early 2002. He had left Mexico because his brother had been killed by a guerrilla group that the government could not control, and he was afraid that the group would kill him. He was arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the INS). Granted voluntary departure, he departed for Mexico, but returned to the United States in August…

concurring:

The en banc majority did not address the Suspension Clause argument Martinez-Merino now raises in Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), but in light of the holding that “[r]einstatement of a prior removal order — regardless of the process affording in the underlying order — does not offend due process,” id. at 497 , I am obliged here to concur that MartinezAMer-ino cannot challenge the validity of his underlying removal proceedings in a petition for review of the reinstatement order. *1072 I write separately to note the Fifth Circuit’s recent conclusion in Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508 (5th Cir.2006), that section 106(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Real ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 310 (May 11, 2005), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D), cured any potential Suspension Clause concerns implicated by § 1231(a)(5)’s foreclosure of judicial review of an underlying removal order. See id. at 513-14 (construing § 1252(a)(2)(D) as “prevent[ing the] operation [of § 1231(a)(5)] in cases ... in which the validity of an underlying order is questioned on constitutional or legal grounds”). Here, were it not for Morales-Izquierdo , I…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANULFO MARTINEZ-MERINO, 

Petitioner, No. 05-74776 v.  Agency No.

A78-198-090

PETER D. KEISLER,* Acting Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.  On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted August 8, 2007—Anchorage, Alaska

Filed October 10, 2007

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, John T. Noonan, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Noonan; Concurrence by Judge Paez

*Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gon- zales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

13715 MARTINEZ-MERINO v. KEISLER 13717

COUNSEL

Phillip J. Eide, Anchorage, Alaska, for the petitioner.

Edward J. Duffy, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. 13718 MARTINEZ-MERINO v. KEISLER

OPINION

NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

In this converted petition for review of the order reinstating his removal from the country, Ranulfo Martinez-Merino (Martinez) challenges the validity of his underlying removal proceedings. Holding…