
    Adriana GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72942.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 21, 2011.
    Nicole Hope Nelson, Nelson Smith, LLP, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adriana Guerrero-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement decision reinstating her prior removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and due process claims. Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t Homeland Security, 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Guerrero-Hernandez’s contention, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) applies to her expedited removal order. See Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 496 n. 14 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (“Any mode of departure — voluntary or involuntary — while subject to an order of removal constitutes a removal for reinstatement purposes.”).

The reinstatement of Guerrero-Hernandez’s removal order did not violate her due process rights. See id. at 497 (“Reinstatement of a prior removal order — regardless of the process afforded in the underlying order — does not offend due process because reinstatement of a prior order does not change the alien’s rights or remedies.”).

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