
    Victor M. ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74937.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 14, 2012.
    Reza G. Athari, Esq., Immigration Law Offices of Reza G. Athari, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor M. Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s order reinstating his 1992 exclusion order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and questions of law, Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Because Romero failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice in his initial exclusion proceeding, he may not at this point collaterally attack his 1992 exclusion order. See id. at 1137-38 (while a petitioner is generally prevented from collaterally attacking an underlying removal order on constitutional or legal grounds, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits some measure of review if he can demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice” in the prior proceedings).

Romero’s contention that the agency erred in applying the reinstatement provision to him because he is eligible for adjustment of status under the special adjustment provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), is unpersuasive. See Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925-26 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     