United States v. Gil-Lopez, 825 F.3d 819

Luis Gil-Lopez, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident since 2000, pleaded guilty in Idaho (2002) to "injury to children" (Idaho Code § 18-1501(1)) and received a multi-year sentence.
In July–August 2004 immigration proceedings, the government charged him as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony; the immigration judge ordered him removed to Mexico on August 17, 2004.
Gil-Lopez (through counsel) executed a written "Withdrawal of Reserve of Appeal" on August 19, 2004, withdrawing his right to appeal the removal order; he was removed ~August 24, 2004 and did not pursue appellate review, reopening, or habeas relief then.
Gil-Lopez illegally reentered the U.S. and was arrested in 2012; he was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) for unlawful reentry after removal.
He moved to dismiss the § 1326 indictment arguing the 2004 removal was invalid (not an aggravated felony, denial of meaningful review, ineffective assistance of counsel, and involuntary waiver of appeal). The district court denied dismissal; Gil-Lopez pleaded guilty conditionally and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gil-Lopez may collaterally attack the 2004 removal in a §1326 defense	Gil-Lopez: removal was fundamentally unfair and his waiver of appeal was not knowing/voluntary	Government: he waived appeal and failed to exhaust administrative remedies, barring collateral attack	Held: Waiver established; failure to exhaust §1326(d) bars collateral attack
Whether the 2004 conviction was an aggravated felony	Gil-Lopez: Idaho statute/divisibility issue makes conviction not an aggravated felony	Government: conviction (crime of violence/child abuse) qualified as aggravated felony	Held: Court did not reach substantive aggravated-felony question after resolving waiver in gov’t favor
Whether withdrawal of appeal was knowing and voluntary	Gil-Lopez: contends he did not knowingly sign or that counsel signed for him	Government: record shows signed withdrawal and counsel’s letter requesting deportation	Held: No evidence to support claim he did not sign; waiver was knowing and voluntary
Whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies permits dismissal of §1326 charge	Gil-Lopez: asserts due-process defects justify collateral attack despite no exhaustion	Government: exhaustion is required under §1326(d) and was not met	Held: Exhaustion requirement not met; defendant cannot collaterally attack prior removal

United States v. Baptist, 759 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (explains §1326(d) collateral-attack requirements)
United States v. Bokhari, 757 F.3d 664 (7th Cir.) (district court may be affirmed on any basis in record)
Dye v. United States, 360 F.3d 744 (7th Cir.) (same rule on affirming on any argued basis)
United States v. Diaz, 533 F.3d 574 (7th Cir.) (unsupported counsel argument is not evidence; claimant must present evidence for factual claims)