
    Victor Martinez OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71633.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 5, 2016.
    Filed April 18, 2016.
    Julie Ann Goldberg, Esquire, Goldberg & Associates, Bronx, NY, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-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: SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Martinez Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) May 2, 2012, order reinstating his April 29, 2000, order of expedited removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Ochoa’s collateral attack on his 2000 expedited removal order. See Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Although [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D) re-vests courts with jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law otherwise barred,” it does not re-vest jurisdiction over expedited removal orders.).

We likewise lack jurisdiction to review Ochoa’s contention that the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 precluded the DHS from reinstating Ochoa’s expedited removal order. See id. at 1137 (stating that our review of a reinstatement order is limited “to the three discrete inquiries an immigration officer must make in order to reinstate a removal order: (1) whether the petitioner is an alien; (2) whether the petitioner was subject to a prior removal order[;] and (3) whether the petitioner reentered illegally”). Contrary to Ochoa’s contention, Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873 (9th Cir.2013), is inapposite because the reinstated removal order in that case was not expedited.

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