United States v. Rufino Peralta-Sanchez
705 F. App'x 542
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rufino Peralta-Sanchez was convicted of illegal entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325) and illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326); the § 1326 count relied on a 2012 expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
- Peralta-Sanchez challenged the 2012 expedited removal as "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), arguing he was denied (1) the right to retain counsel and (2) notice of the right to seek withdrawal of application for admission.
- The Ninth Circuit assumed (for appeal) that those rights existed and were violated, framing the dispute around whether Peralta-Sanchez suffered prejudice from the violations.
- The court applied the "plausible grounds" prejudice standard from prior Ninth Circuit precedent: prejudice requires a plausible (not merely possible) showing that relief would have been granted or discretion exercised in the alien’s favor.
- The record showed repeated reentries, significant criminal history (including a cocaine possession conviction), and rapid reapprehensions surrounding the 2012 proceedings—factors the court found undermined any plausibility that counsel or notice would have produced relief.
- The court affirmed the § 1326 conviction and consequent supervised-release revocation because Peralta-Sanchez failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Peralta-Sanchez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 expedited removal was "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) | Denial of right to hire counsel and failure to advise of withdrawal relief made the proceedings unfair | Even assuming a due-process violation, Peralta-Sanchez cannot show prejudice (no plausible grounds for relief) | Held: No; Peralta-Sanchez failed to show prejudice, so removal order may be used as § 1326 predicate |
| Whether denial of ability to hire counsel prejudiced Peralta-Sanchez | An attorney could have obtained a hearing before an immigration judge or nunc pro tunc relief | Record and statutory bars (drug conviction; multiple reentries) make it implausible an officer or IJ would favorably exercise discretion | Held: No; implausible that counsel would have led to discretionary relief |
| Whether denial of counsel could have enabled adjustment of status | Counsel could have assisted with adjustment application | Inadmissibility (drug conviction, prior orders) made adjustment impossible | Held: No; adjustment was not a plausible remedy |
| Whether failure to notify about withdrawal of application (and lack of counsel) caused prejudice | An attorney/notice could have led to withdrawal relief | Inspector's Field Manual factors and Peralta-Sanchez’s adverse equities make withdrawal relief implausible | Held: No; withdrawal relief was not plausibly available |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2014) (prejudice and plausibility standard for § 1326(d) challenges)
- United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) ("plausible grounds" standard and discussion of withdrawal relief factors)
- United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 791 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2015) (conviction for cocaine possession renders alien inadmissible)
- United States v. Aguilera-Rios, 769 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2014) (finality of prior inadmissibility findings)