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, which relied on a September 2021 administrative removal order as a predicate. The court applied de novo review and held that Ramirez failed to satisfy the three requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) necessary to mount a collateral attack against the removal order. Specifically, the court found that Ramirez did not demonstrate that his removal proceedings improperly deprived him of the opportunity for judicial review, noting that an immigration officer’s statement regarding deportation and alleged dissuasion from calling counsel did not legally preclude his right to appeal within the statutory 30-day window. Furthermore, while acknowledging a due process violation occurred because Ramirez was served notice, issued an order, and deported on the same day, the court ruled that Ramirez failed to show prejudice as required by *United States v. Gambino-Ruiz*. The court determined Ramirez did not establish plausible grounds for relief, rejecting his argument that obtaining counsel would have allowed him to set aside a 2018 state assault conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, citing insufficient evidence that he would have rejected the plea deal given the video evidence and potential four-year sentence. Consequently, the administrative removal order remains valid to sustain the indictment, and the government’s case proceeds without reaching the validity of a separate expedited removal order.

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