United States v. Encarnacion Gonzalez-Villalobo
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15282
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- In 1986 Gonzalez-Villalobos was arrested and convicted on state controlled-substance charges; INS encountered him and created an I-213 with A-file ending in “910.”
- He later applied for Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) legalization in 1988; that application was assigned a different A-file ending in “678” and was denied on appeal in 1991.
- In November 1991 INS detained him at an INS office, prepared a second I-213 (using the 1986 A-file), and charged him as deportable for a drug conviction; at his April 1992 deportation hearing the IJ denied his request for a suppression hearing and ordered deportation.
- Gonzalez-Villalobos timely appealed to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal; he later filed (and then voluntarily dismissed) a habeas petition, and was deported in April 1999.
- He returned to the U.S., was arrested in 2011, indicted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and moved to dismiss the indictment arguing the 1992 deportation order was fundamentally unfair because INS obtained conviction records from his SAW file and the IJ denied an evidentiary (suppression) hearing.
- The district court denied the motion; after a conditional guilty plea preserving appeal rights, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Gonzalez-Villalobos satisfied § 1326(d)(1) (exhaustion) but failed to show he was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review under § 1326(d)(2), so his collateral attack failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant exhausted administrative remedies under § 1326(d)(1) | Gonzalez-Villalobos argued he appealed the IJ decision to the BIA | Government: defendant must meet all § 1326(d) requirements | Held: Plaintiff satisfied § 1326(d)(1) — he appealed to the BIA |
| Whether deportation proceedings improperly deprived him of opportunity for judicial review under § 1326(d)(2) | He contends denial of a suppression/evidentiary hearing (and alleged unlawful use of SAW file) deprived him of meaningful judicial review | Government: no error or obstacle prevented him from obtaining review; he in fact appealed and filed habeas | Held: § 1326(d)(2) not met — no actual or constructive deprivation of judicial review; appeal and habeas show access to courts |
| Whether the deportation order was "fundamentally unfair" under § 1326(d)(3) | He argued the order was fundamentally unfair because it relied on unlawfully obtained SAW-file material and the IJ refused an evidentiary hearing | Government disputed prejudice and fairness; court noted all three § 1326(d) elements must be met | Held: Court did not reach merits of (d)(3) because (d)(2) failure is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza-Lopez v. United States, 481 U.S. 828 (1987) (administrative findings used to support criminal charges require meaningful judicial review)
- Ubaldo-Figueroa v. United States, 364 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to inform of appeal right can deprive opportunity for judicial review)
- Pallares-Galan v. United States, 359 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004) (effective deprivation of administrative appeal can excuse exhaustion and foreclose judicial review)
- Vidal-Mendoza v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2013) (broad interpretation of § 1326(d) but requiring actual impediment to review)
- Lopez-Velasquez v. Holder, 629 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ must inform alien of reasonable possibility of eligibility for relief)
- Reyes-Bonilla v. United States, 671 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012) (waiver of appeal not "considered and intelligent" can deprive judicial review)
- Camacho-Lopez v. United States, 450 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2006) (mischaracterizing convictions and denying notice of relief eligibility can invalidate waiver of appeal)
- Leon-Paz v. United States, 340 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2003) (errors about relief eligibility can satisfy § 1326(d)(1) and (d)(2))
- Arrieta v. INS, 224 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2000) (failure to inform of eligibility for § 212(h) relief can deny meaningful review)
- Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (exclusionary rule in deportation context limited; agency rule violations may trigger suppression when they benefit the alien)