United States v. Rufino Peralta-Sanchez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2165
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Rufino Peralta-Sanchez was arrested near the U.S.–Mexico border in March 2014 and charged with illegal entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325) and illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326), the latter predicated on a July 2012 expedited removal.
- Peralta had a long immigration and criminal history: earlier lawful permanent resident status lost after a 1999 removal; multiple reentries and removals (including 2012 expedited removal); prior felony convictions.
- Peralta moved to dismiss the § 1326 count arguing his 2012 expedited removal was fundamentally unfair because he was not told of a right to counsel and was not informed about the possibility of withdrawing his application for admission.
- The district court denied dismissal, relying on the validity of the 2012 expedited removal; Peralta was convicted and sentenced; he appealed only the 2012 removal’s sufficiency as a § 1326 predicate.
- The Ninth Circuit applied Mathews v. Eldridge balancing to due-process claims, assumed Peralta had standing to challenge the expedited removal, and reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires providing or notifying of a right to hire counsel in §1225 expedited removal | Peralta: aliens who effected entry are entitled to greater process, including notice of right to counsel | Gov: §1225 contains no statutory right; Congress intentionally omitted counsel for expedited removals and due process does not independently require it | Court: No due-process right to government-paid counsel in §1225 expedited removal; denying counsel was not a constitutional violation |
| Whether failure to inform about withdrawal of application for admission violated due process and prejudiced defendant | Peralta: officer’s failure to explain withdrawal relief deprived him of a plausible avenue and caused prejudice to his ability to avoid removal | Gov: §1225/regulations do not require notice of withdrawal; even assuming a right, Peralta cannot show plausibly that AG would have granted withdrawal under field‑manual factors | Court: Even if notice were required, Peralta cannot show prejudice—withdrawal relief was implausible given his repeated reentries, prior inadmissibility, intent, health/age, and humanitarian factors |
| Whether the 2012 expedited removal was fundamentally unfair such that it cannot serve as §1326 predicate | Peralta: denial of counsel and lack of notice of withdrawal made removal fundamentally unfair | Gov: procedures met §1225 notice/response requirements; Mathews factors favor current scheme; no prejudice shown | Court: 2012 expedited removal was not fundamentally unfair; can be used as §1326 predicate |
| Whether collateral attack exhaustion/judicial-review requirements barred challenge to removal order | Peralta: challenged removal under §1326(d) | Gov: conceded first two prongs (no remedies, deprived of judicial review); only fundamental-fairness prong remains | Court: First two prongs satisfied; but third prong (fundamental unfairness) not met by Peralta |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (Due Process Clause applies to all persons within U.S. territory)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
- Raya-Vaca v. United States, 771 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2014) (elements for collateral attack of removal as §1326 defense)
- Barajas-Alvarado v. Holder, 655 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (expedited removal does not confer counsel notice requirement; standards for withdrawal relief prejudice)
- Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2005) (right to counsel rooted in due process for certain immigration proceedings)
- Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302 (1955) (deportation proceedings not governed by APA; INA displaces APA adjudicatory provisions)
- Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129 (1991) (reinforcing INA as governing removal procedures in lieu of APA)
- Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (no due-process violation where alien reentered illegally instead of seeking review from outside U.S.)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (recharacterization of certain DUI offenses for immigration law purposes)
- Aguilera-Rios v. Holder, 769 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2014) (treatment of intervening authority in assessing removability on collateral review)