United States v. Melendez-Castro
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 948
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Melendez-Castro, a Mexican native and U.S. permanent resident, lived in California for years as a worker and family man.
- In 1997, INS charged him with removability for two crimes involving moral turpitude; a group hearing occurred.
- The IJ explained cancellation of removal and then discussed voluntary departure, indicating he would not grant it due to the criminal record.
- Melendez-Castro did not appeal the deportation order and was deported the same day.
- He reentered the U.S. and was indicted in 2010 for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; he sought to dismiss the indictment as based on an invalid deportation.
- The district court denied the motion and he was convicted; on appeal, the due process issue was reviewed collateral to the deportation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process defect in advising about voluntary departure | Melendez-Castro argues due process was violated by the IJ's equivocal and discouraging advice. | United States contends no meaningful defect affecting review occurred. | Due process violation established; remand for prejudice analysis. |
| Validity of waiver of appeal in deportation | Waiver was not intelligently or considerately made due to defective proceedings. | Waiver should bar collateral attack if valid. | Waiver deemed invalid; not a proper exhaustion bar. |
| Requirement and proof of prejudice for collateral attack | A plausible ground for relief suffices; dismissal should be warranted preliminarily. | Prejudice must be evaluated with more record detail before relief. | Remanded to address prejudice in the first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion and fundamental unfairness framework for collateral attacks)
- United States v. Ortiz-Lopez, 385 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-part test for collateral attack under § 1326(d))
- United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process requires advising of relief eligibility and opportunity to develop claim)
- United States v. Pallares-Galan, 359 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004) (due process and meaningful review standards in collateral attacks)
- Campos-Granillo v. INS, 12 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 1993) (factors for evaluating eligibility and equities in relief determinations)
- United States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion bar cannot block collateral review when waiver is defective)