United States v. Ruben Castelan-Jaimes
575 F. App'x 253
5th Cir.2014Background
- Defendant Ruben Castelan-Jaimes was charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 based on a July 28, 2003 removal order issued after BIA reconsideration.
- An IJ had earlier found him not removable, but the BIA issued an order on reconsideration reversing/removing him.
- Castelan-Jaimes moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the BIA lacked statutory authority to order removal in the first instance and that the removal violated his due process rights.
- He also argued the removal order could not be used to prove the prior-deportation element of the § 1326 offense.
- The district court denied the motion; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and evaluated whether he could collaterally attack the removal order under the three‑part test for fundamental unfairness, exhaustion, and deprivation of judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA had authority to order removal in the first instance | BIA lacked statutory authority because IJ found not removable | Government: BIA order stands; defendant failed to seek timely judicial review | BIA cannot generally order removal in first instance, but here the order was voidable-not-void and stands for § 1326 because no petition for review was filed |
| Whether the removal proceeding was fundamentally unfair (due process) | Lack of notice of BIA reconsideration and attorney failed to notify him | Government: he received notice through counsel and a hearing; process due was satisfied | Proceedings were fundamentally fair — notice to counsel sufficed; no due process violation |
| Whether alleged procedural defects deprived him of judicial review | Argues defects eliminated his ability to seek review | Government: defendant did not pursue judicial review timely | Defendant failed to show he was deprived of effective judicial review as required for collateral attack |
| Whether alleged errors prejudiced defendant (reasonable likelihood of different outcome) | Attorney’s failure to notify and BIA error prejudiced him — he might have obtained relief | Government: defendant offered no evidence he would have avoided removal or obtained relief | No prejudice shown; speculative relief (adjustment, withholding, CAT, voluntary departure) insufficient; discretionary relief errors do not establish due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Villanueva-Diaz, 634 F.3d 844 (5th Cir. 2011) (standards for collateral attack and notice via counsel)
- United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1987) (aliens may collateral attack deportation orders in § 1326 prosecutions)
- United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2002) (three‑part test for collateral attack: exhaustion, deprivation of judicial review, fundamental unfairness)
- James v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2006) (BIA lacks authority to order removal in first instance)
- United States v. Mendoza-Mata, 322 F.3d 829 (5th Cir. 2003) (prejudice standard for collateral attack)
- United States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 227 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2000) (prior removal order may support § 1326 conviction when collateral-attack requirements unmet)