Case Explained: USA V. RODRIGUEZ RAMIREZ

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-13

Docket: 3:23-cr-00206-BTM-1; 3:22-cr-

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Omar Rodriguez Ramirez’s motion to dismiss an information charging him with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, based on his failure to properly mount a collateral attack against his September 2021 administrative removal order. Under the standard of review de novo for motions to dismiss under § 1326(d), the court applied the three statutory requirements necessary to collaterally attack a predicate removal order: exhaustion of administrative remedies, proof that the proceedings improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review, and proof that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. The court held that Rodriguez failed to satisfy the second and third requirements. Regarding judicial review, the court found no evidence that Rodriguez was prevented from appealing his removal order within the required 30-day window, rejecting his arguments that an officer’s statement that he would be deported “no matter what” or alleged dissuasion from calling an attorney constituted a deprivation of his right to appeal. Regarding fundamental unfairness, while the court acknowledged that Rodriguez was denied due process by being served a notice of removal, issued an order, and deported on the same day, it ruled that this violation did not warrant dismissal because Rodriguez failed to demonstrate prejudice. To establish prejudice, a defendant must show plausible grounds for relief; the court found Rodriguez lacked such grounds because his claim that he would have rejected a guilty plea to his 2018 state assault conviction if represented by effective counsel was unsupported by evidence of ineffective assistance or a reasonable probability of rejecting the plea deal given the video evidence and potential sentence. Consequently, the administrative removal order remains valid for the purposes of the § 1326 indictment, and the government’s illegal reentry charge stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.