United States v. Martin Ocampo-Gomez, 20-2890

Martin Ocampo-Gomez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. unlawfully and was arrested in 2005 for aggravated DUI.
He received a Notice to Appear (NTA) that omitted the time and place of his removal hearing; he later learned the hearing details, appeared, and participated without objecting to the defective NTA.
An immigration judge ordered his removal in April 2006; he was subsequently removed in 2013 and 2018, and later reentered the U.S.
A grand jury indicted Ocampo-Gomez for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; he moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the 2006 removal order was invalid because the NTA omitted time and place.
The district court denied the motion relying on Seventh Circuit precedent (Ortiz-Santiago, Manriquez-Alvarado); Ocampo-Gomez conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed the denial.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Ocampo-Gomez cannot collaterally attack his removal order because he failed to timely object and controlling precedent forecloses his claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a removal order is invalid for lack of time/place in the NTA when the noncitizen did not timely object and seeks to collaterally attack the order in a §1326 prosecution	U.S.: Seventh Circuit precedent bars collateral attacks where the noncitizen could have timely objected	Ocampo-Gomez: Omission of time/place in NTA rendered removal order invalid and subject to collateral attack	Held: Affirmed — collateral attack barred; noncitizen who failed to timely object cannot use the NTA defect to invalidate removal in later §1326 prosecution
Whether Ortiz-Santiago should be overruled based on IIRIRA §309 and City of Arlington (agency ultra vires theory)	U.S.: No compelling basis to overrule existing precedent	Ocampo-Gomez: Ortiz-Santiago was wrongly decided and should be overturned given statutory and Supreme Court authority	Held: Declined to overrule Ortiz-Santiago; defendant’s disagreement with precedent is not a compelling reason to disturb circuit law

Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019) (omission of time/place in NTA is not jurisdictional where no timely objection)
Manriquez-Alvarado v. United States, 953 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2020) (declining to overrule Ortiz-Santiago; collateral attacks barred where timely objection was available)
Hernandez-Perdomo v. United States, 948 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2020) (standard of review and due-process challenge treatment in §1326 context)
Buchmeier v. United States, 581 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (stare decisis requires compelling circumstances to overrule circuit precedent)
Castellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2011) (overruling precedent requires compelling circumstances)
United States v. Lamon, 893 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 2018) (examples of when subsequent changes can justify overruling precedent)
City of Arlington v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (agency action beyond authority described as ultra vires)