
    Jose Dolores MENA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75518.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 8, 2008.
    Beth S. Persky, Beth Sarla Persky Law Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Dolores Mena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s decision to reinstate his prior removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Mena’s challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) is foreclosed by Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 498 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (concluding that a previously removed alien who reenters the country unlawfully is not entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge on whether to reinstate a prior removal order).

Mena is precluded from applying for adjustment of status. See Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir.2003) (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) bars an alien who has had a removal order reinstated from adjustment of status).

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