United States v. Alvaro Sanchez-Aguilar, 719 F.3d 1108

Sanchez-Aguilar is a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. as a child and has been removed on five occasions, most recently in 2010.
After the 2010 removal, he returned to the U.S. without authorization, leading to a §1326 prosecution in 2011.
The government conceded four prior removals were due process-invalid, but contested the 2006 removal’s validity; the district court allowed the 2006 removal to serve as the predicate.
Trial evidence focused on the 2006 removal and after-2006 return; the 2010 removal was not admitted at trial.
Meza-Villarello governed whether a subsequent §1326 conviction requires proof of departure after the prior conviction and whether double jeopardy concerns arise.
The majority held that proof of post-2009 departure is not an element of the charged offense, and the government proved the 2006 removal and post-removal return to sustain the conviction; double jeopardy defenses were not raised as preserved claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-2009 departure requirement affects the conviction	Sanchez-Aguilar contends insufficient proof of post-2009 departure implicates double jeopardy.	Government argues only proof of removal and subsequent return is needed, not every departure post-conviction.	No error; evidence supported the conviction; not a double-jeopardy violation.
Collateral challenge to the 2006 removal order	Due process violation in 2006 removal order invalidates predicate for §1326.	No due process violation; no prejudice shown.	Due process not shown; collateral attack fails.
Meza-Villarello interpretation and jury role	Meza-Villarello requires jury finding that defendant left the U.S. after prior conviction.	Government need only prove departure evidence; no jury finding required for second offense under §1326.	Jury not required to find departure; Meza-Villarello interpreted to require proof of departure, not a jury directive.
Due process in expedited removal context (border interview)	Officer failed to inform of withdrawal relief, potentially due process issue.	Expedited removal process provides limited rights; no obligation to inform of withdrawal relief.	No due process violation.

Barajas-Alvarado v. United States, 655 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (due-process defects in removal orders affect predicate validity)
Ubaldo-Figueroa v. United States, 364 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004) (collateral attack standard for removal orders; prejudice analysis)
Meza-Villarello v. United States, 602 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1979) (two-part rule: no need for post-conviction deportation for second §1326, but must prove departure after prior conviction)
Romo-Romo v. United States, 246 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of §1326 emphasis on removal and subsequent return)
Persico v. United States, 832 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1987) (double jeopardy as a legal question; standard for post-trial review)
Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001) (consideration of precedents; language matters for binding authority)
Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (expedited removal limits and rights of non-admitted aliens)