Laurencio Juarez-Chavez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 515 F. App'x 463

Juarez-Chavez, a Mexican national, was served an NTA in Oct 2006 charging removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i).
He signed a written stipulation waiving a hearing, admitting the NTA facts, and waiving relief rights, with the agreement read and explained to him.
An INA judge ordered removal in Dec 2006 pursuant to the stipulation; Juarez-Chavez did not seek review, and was subsequently removed to Mexico that month.
He later reentered the U.S.; in Oct 2011 Ohio authorities arrested him on a soliciting charge.
DHS reinstated the December 2006 removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); Juarez-Chavez petitioned for review challenging the underlying order.
He argued the stipulation was not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent, and that the IJ failed to independently determine these attributes, potentially violating due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review reinstatement order vs. underlying order	§1252(a)(2)(D) preserves some constitutional/legal challenges to the underlying order.	Review is limited to reinstatement order; §1252(b)(1) bars untimely challenges to the underlying order.	Court lacks jurisdiction to review the underlying order due to untimeliness; can review only constitutional/legal questions arising from reinstatement.
Timeliness of collateral challenge to the December 2006 order	Due process concerns may excuse delay in challenging the underlying order when reinstatement forecloses review.	§1252(b)(1) deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional; untimely collateral challenge cannot be reached.	collateral challenge untimely; §1252(b)(1) bars review.
Validity of the stipulation and its voluntary nature	Stipulated removal orders may not be voluntary if not independently determined; due process may be violated.	Stipulation and waiver were adequately explained; valid under governing procedures.	Issue not decided on the merits; addressed as jurisdictional/procedural, not applicable here.
Suspension Clause and potential as-applied challenges	Indicates possible Suspension Clause issue if reviewers are foreclosed due to reinstatement.	Not implicated in the present record; no relief on Suspension Clause claims.	Court notes potential theories but does not resolve them here.

Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2010) (reinstatement review limited to constitutional claims under §1252(a)(2)(D))
Elgharib v. Napolitano, 600 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2010) (limits on review of reinstatement orders under §1252(a)(5))
Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 659 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional limits of §1252; 1252(a)(2)(D) savings clause does not broaden review)
Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (§1252(a)(2)(D) does not override other jurisdictional limits)
Lorenzo v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2007) (savings clause does not erase statutory jurisdictional bars)
Debeato v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 505 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2007) (addressing review of removal orders in context of jurisdiction)
Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2006) (commentary on jurisdiction and review of removal orders)
Muka v. Baker, 559 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2009) (Suspension Clause considerations for review procedures)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (S. Ct. 2009) (petition for review and viable avenues for relief; timing considerations)