order. Petitioner is correct that we have limited jurisdiction over reinstatement of deportation orders. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir.2008). But we do not have a reinstatement of deportation order here. The government is enforcing the 1992 deportation order for the first time because Banuelos never left the country after the 1992 order was issued. The government concedes that it incorrectly filled out the 1-294 warning letter it gave Mr. Banuelos, making it appear that he was found “to have reentered the United States illegally.” The faulty form, however, does not change the legal status of Mr. Banuelos’s removal, it merely misstated the consequences attached to his removal. Cf. United States v. Ayala, 35 F.3d 423, 425 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Perez-Torres, 15 F.3d 403,
holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process holding that a filing deadline under federal land policy and management act carrying a penalty of an automatic forfeiture of a mining claim did not violate due process holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that warning letter that incorrectly stated penalty for reentry did not violate due process