
    Sergio Alfonso ARREOLA-ARREOLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71830.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2011.
    Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
    Stacy Tolchin, Law Offices of Stacy Tol-chin, Los Angeles, CA, Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Papú Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Alfonso Arreola-Arreola (“Arreo-la”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the reinstatement of a prior order of removal from the United States. We have jurisdiction to review Arreola’s challenge to the reinstatement order .under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). In exercising that jurisdiction, we are not precluded by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) from reviewing a collateral constitutional attack on the prior order of removal underlying the reinstatement order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

Arreola’s alleged deprivation of due process in his underlying removal proceedings cannot support his claim before this court: that his due process rights were violated by the reinstatement of that prior order. The “[rjeinstatement 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.” Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 497 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

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