Jorge Moreno-Martinez v. William P. Barr, 932 F.3d 461

Jorge Moreno-Martinez, a Honduran national, was ordered removed after immigration proceedings in 2011; he did not seek timely judicial review of that removal order.
He departed the U.S. in 2012 but later reentered; DHS detained him in 2018 and issued a notice of intent to reinstate the 2011 removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
Moreno-Martinez and counsel contend they did not receive a copy of the reinstatement order or an opportunity to contest it and argue the underlying removal order was void under Pereira because the Notice to Appear lacked a specific time and date.
The Sixth Circuit treats reinstatement orders like removal orders for review but recognizes jurisdiction over constitutional and legal claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
The court held it had jurisdiction to review Moreno-Martinez’s due-process challenge to the reinstatement but could not grant the requested relief (vacatur of the underlying removal) because collateral attacks on final removal orders are time-barred by the 30-day filing requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS denied due process in reinstatement by failing to provide the reinstatement order and an opportunity to contest it	Moreno-Martinez: DHS’s procedural failures prevented him from arguing the underlying removal was void (Pereira)	DHS: Court can review constitutional questions about reinstatement but the underlying removal is final and time-barred	Court: Jurisdiction exists to review the due-process claim, but petitioner shows no prejudice because relief requiring vacatur of the underlying removal is jurisdictionally barred
Whether the underlying removal order can be vacated as void for lack of time/date on the NTA	Moreno-Martinez: NTA omission rendered removal order void ab initio under Pereira	DHS: Challenge to underlying removal is an untimely collateral attack barred by § 1252(b)(1)	Court: Lack of jurisdiction to reopen or vacate the removal order because petition was not filed within 30 days

Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2011) (circuit has jurisdiction over constitutional or legal claims in reinstatement proceedings)
Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for legal questions in immigration appeals)
Graham v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2008) (prejudice requirement for due-process claims)
Casillas v. Holder, 656 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2011) (limitations on collateral attacks when delay is government-caused)
Juarez-Chavez v. Holder, [citation="515 F. App'x 463"] (6th Cir. 2013) (reinstated orders are treated as issued from the original date)
Prekaj v. INS, 384 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2004) (30-day deadline for petitions for review is mandatory and jurisdictional)
Gor v. Holder, 607 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional effect of the 30-day requirement)
Ovalle-Ruiz v. Holder, [citation="591 F. App'x 397"] (6th Cir. 2014) (scope of review for reinstatement proceedings and possible collateral claims)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (precedential limits when jurisdictional defects are unaddressed)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional requirements precede merits)
Hamama v. Adducci, 912 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. 2018) (habeas and adequacy of substitute review mechanisms)
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (U.S. 2018) (NTA missing time/date may deprive court of jurisdiction)