United States v. Rodrigo Martinez-Mendoza, 20-4025

In 1996–1997 Martinez‑Mendoza, a Mexican national who entered without inspection, was served with an Order to Show Cause and supplied a Houston address; he was warned that failure to appear could result in an in‑absentia deportation order.
A Notice of Hearing for May 6, 1997 allegedly was mailed by certified mail, but no certified‑mail return receipt appears in the file; the IJ later stated notice had been mailed and admitted a copy into the record.
In April 1997 INS agents encountered Martinez‑Mendoza in a workplace raid; an I‑213 recorded a May hearing date and a “VR” notation; Martinez‑Mendoza returned to Mexico in April, but parties disputed whether that was an INS voluntary return or his own departure.
Martinez‑Mendoza did not attend the May 6 hearing; the IJ entered an in‑absentia removal order and mailed notice of the order to his Houston address; he did not challenge the order at that time.
In 2017 he was charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry based on the 1997 order and moved to dismiss under § 1326(d), arguing lack of proper notice and that an INS voluntary return made attendance impossible.
After two evidentiary hearings the district court found Martinez‑Mendoza had actual notice and was not voluntarily returned by INS, denied the § 1326(d) challenge, convicted him at bench trial, and sentenced him; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice of hearing	Martinez‑Mendoza: no certified‑mail return receipt; thus he lacked proper notice and could not contest the in‑absentia order	Government: IJ found notice mailed; contemporaneous I‑213 and other evidence support inference he knew of the hearing	Court: Found actual notice plausible (IJ finding + I‑213 + defendant offered no testimony denying notice); denied collateral attack
Voluntary return ("VR") to Mexico	Martinez‑Mendoza: “VR” on I‑213 shows INS voluntarily returned him before hearing, making attendance impossible and depriving him of review	Government: File lacks required VR paperwork; local policy and witness testimony indicate VR unlikely; VR entry may be error	Court: Credited government witnesses; absence of VR paperwork and policies support conclusion no voluntary return; denied collateral attack
Burden under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)	Martinez‑Mendoza: procedural defects (lack of notice and VR) made it impossible to seek review, satisfying §1326(d) prerequisites	Government: Even if procedural flaws alleged, defendant must prove them; here factual predicates not met	Court: Because defendant failed to prove lack of notice or involuntary deprivation, he could not meet §1326(d) requirements; affirmed

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear‑error standard and deference to factfinder credibility assessments)
United States v. El Shami, 434 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 2006) (procedural defects may excuse exhaustion and judicial‑review prerequisites when they make review impossible)
United States v. Moreno‑Tapia, 848 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2017) (§ 1326(d) three‑part test for collateral attacks on removal orders)
United States v. Lopez‑Collazo, 824 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for §1326(d) rulings)
United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019) (government may use a removal order as a predicate element for §1326 prosecution)
United States v. Shea, 989 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2021) (deference owed to district court factual findings)