Alejandro Villa-Anguiano v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16839
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Alejandro Villa-Anguiano, a lawful permanent resident removed in 1997 after a voluntary-manslaughter conviction, unlawfully reentered the U.S. in 2001 and was arrested in 2008.
- ICE began reinstatement proceedings in May 2008; Villa waived an initial opportunity to contest reinstatement then but was later criminally prosecuted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- While defending the § 1326 charge, Villa collaterally attacked the 1997 removal order, and the district court dismissed the indictment, finding due process violations in the 1997 proceedings that invalidated the order as a § 1326 predicate.
- The day after the criminal dismissal, ICE reinstated and executed the 1997 removal order without giving Villa a renewed opportunity to contest reinstatement or independently reconsider whether to initiate new plenary removal proceedings.
- The Ninth Circuit granted review of the reinstatement decision, vacated the reinstatement order, and remanded for ICE to (1) allow Villa a timely written/oral opportunity to address reinstatement in light of the district court’s findings and (2) independently reassess whether to rely on the prior order or institute new removal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICE could reinstate a prior removal order immediately after a §1326 dismissal based on a court finding constitutional defects in the prior proceedings | Villa: agency must provide a meaningful post-dismissal opportunity to contest reinstatement and must reconsider whether to pursue plenary proceedings when a court invalidates the prior order for criminal-predicate purposes | Government: statutory/regulatory framework (8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(5), 8 C.F.R. §241.8) permits reinstatement once predicates are met; no due-process right to lobby prosecutorial discretion after waiver | Court: ICE must provide a timely opportunity to contest reinstatement in light of the district court's findings and must independently reassess whether to reinstate or open new removal proceedings; remand required |
| Scope of judicial review of reinstatement orders and role of prosecutorial discretion | Villa: where judicial scrutiny shows constitutional infirmities, agency must consider those findings before reinstating | Government: reinstatement is administrative and not reopened; agency discretion to reinstate is broad and not reviewable beyond factual predicates | Court: judicial review limited to factual predicates, but where criminal proceedings reveal constitutional infirmities relevant to ICE’s discretion, due process and 8 C.F.R. §241.8 require renewed consideration |
| Whether ICE had adequate information and gave meaningful opportunity to be heard after the district court’s decision | Villa: ICE acted on incomplete/misinformed record (form misstates outcome) and denied a meaningful, timely opportunity to address new developments | Government: ICE had satisfied notice requirements in May 2008 and Villa had waived contest then; subsequent reinstatement complied with regs | Court: ICE’s reliance on outdated/misleading information and failure to permit a post-dismissal address rendered process inadequate; remand for meaningful opportunity required |
| Whether remedial relief (remand) requires ICE to reach a particular outcome | Villa: seeks vacatur/remand for proper consideration | Government: remand unnecessary because reinstatement was lawful and final | Court: remand is required for reconsideration but court expresses no view on the ultimate outcome; ICE may lawfully reach same result after proper process |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2001) (jurisdiction to review reinstatement orders)
- Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2003) (procedural posture regarding reinstatement review)
- Mendoza-Lopez v. United States, 481 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1987) (permitting collateral attack on deportation order used as §1326 predicate when denial of judicial review occurred)
- St. Cyr v. INS, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (effect on availability of relief in removal proceedings)
- Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (limits on review of reinstatement and scope of §241.8 procedures)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process balancing: meaningful time and manner to be heard)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (discretion not to act by agencies and reviewability distinction)
- Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process requires consideration of all relevant evidence in discretionary relief decisions)
- Ponta-Garcia v. Attorney General, 557 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2009) (remand to ICE when district court invalidates prior removal order and petitioner raises relevant claims)