## Facts

- Raul Morales-Izquierdo, a Mexican national, was arrested in 1994 for entering the United States without inspection.
- He was served with an order to show cause and was notified by certified mail of his deportation hearing.
- Morales failed to appear and was ordered removed in absentia; the record included a returned certified-mail receipt signed “Raul Morales.”
- After removal in 1998, he reentered illegally; in 2001 he was found with a fraudulent border-crossing card and removed again, then reentered illegally the next day.
- Morales later married a U.S. citizen, who filed a visa petition and adjustment application on his behalf.
- At a 2003 USCIS interview, an officer served Morales with the petition denial and a notice of intent to reinstate his prior removal order.
- A DHS immigration officer reinstated the prior order under 8 C.F.R. § 241.8 through a streamlined administrative process without an immigration judge hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether 8 C.F.R. § 241.8 validly implements 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) by authorizing immigration officers, rather than immigration judges, to reinstate prior removal orders using a summary procedure.
2. Whether the regulation conflicts with the INA’s procedural framework governing removal proceedings.
3. Whether reinstatement by an immigration officer without an immigration judge hearing violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review and upheld 8 C.F.R. § 241.8.
- The court held the regulation is a reasonable interpretation of § 1231(a)(5) and is consistent with the INA’s structure.
- The court rejected the due process challenge, concluding the reinstatement process provides constitutionally sufficient procedures for the limited factual determinations required.
- The court concluded Morales could not use the reinstatement process to collaterally attack the validity of the original in absentia removal order.

## Legal Principles

- Reinstatement under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) is an administrative enforcement mechanism that revives an existing removal order; it is not a new removal adjudication of removability.
- The agency may assign reinstatement determinations to immigration officers through regulation where the statute does not specify the decisionmaker or require full removal-hearing procedures.
- Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.8, the reinstating officer’s inquiry is limited to verifying: (1) a prior removal order, (2) the noncitizen’s identity, and (3) unlawful reentry.
- Due process is satisfied by procedures appropriate to the limited scope of reinstatement, including notice and an opportunity to contest the officer’s factual findings.
- Section 1231(a)(5) bars reopening or review of the prior order in the reinstatement process and restricts relief; challenges to the original order must proceed, if at all, through the INA’s mechanisms applicable to the original case.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that DHS may reinstate a prior removal order through the streamlined, officer-led procedure in 8 C.F.R. § 241.8, that this approach reasonably implements 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), and that the limited process provided is constitutionally adequate given reinstatement’s narrow factual scope and the statutory bar on collateral attacks.


Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)