United States v. Ernesto Haro-Munoz
552 F. App'x 689
9th Cir.2014Background
- Haro-Munoz was convicted of attempted entry after deportation and moved to dismiss the indictment by collaterally attacking his underlying removal.
- He argued his due process rights were violated because: (1) no evidence he received actual notice of the Form I-860 contents, and (2) agents did not obtain his signature on Form I-860.
- He claimed prejudice because an immigration officer plausibly could have granted discretionary relief to withdraw his application for admission.
- To collaterally attack removal, a defendant must show exhaustion of remedies, denial of judicial review, and that the removal was fundamentally unfair; only fundamental unfairness was in dispute here.
- The panel evaluated whether discretionary withdrawal of the application was plausible under six Field Manual factors and concluded withdrawal was implausible based on four adverse factors outweighing two favorable ones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haro-Munoz can collaterally attack the removal as fundamentally unfair | Haro-Munoz: due process violated by lack of notice/signature on Form I-860 causing prejudice because withdrawal of application was plausible | Government: even if procedural defects occurred, Haro-Munoz cannot show prejudice because discretionary withdrawal was implausible | Denied: removal not fundamentally unfair because withdrawal of application was implausible, so no prejudice shown |
| Whether discretionary withdrawal of the application for admission was plausible | Haro-Munoz: Field Manual factors could support officer granting withdrawal | Government: Field Manual factors weigh against withdrawal given serious evasion, deliberate crossing, age/health, and impediments to removing inadmissibility | Held against Haro-Munoz: four factors weighed against withdrawal, making relief implausible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rojas-Pedroza, 716 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2013) (framework for collateral attack: exhaustion, deprivation of judicial review, and fundamental unfairness)
- United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (identifies six Field Manual factors for withdrawal of application for admission)
- Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses effect of convictions and expungement on immigration eligibility)
- Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (addresses expungement and its relevance to removing disqualifications)