Background
The defendant, Omar Rodriguez Ramirez, appealed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an information charging him with illegal reentry under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. The charge relied on two removal orders: a September two thousand twenty-one administrative removal order and a December two thousand twenty-one expedited removal order.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial de novo and found the defendant did not satisfy the requirements for a collateral attack under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six, subsection d. First, the defendant failed to show that the removal proceedings improperly deprived him of the opportunity for judicial review, as he was notified of his right to appeal within thirty days and identified no obstacle preventing him from exercising that right. Second, while the court agreed the defendant was denied due process because he was served a notice of removal, issued an order, and deported on the same day, the defendant failed to show prejudice. To establish prejudice, he needed to demonstrate plausible grounds for relief, such as setting aside a prior guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, but the court found no evidence supporting that he would have rejected the plea deal.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that defendants challenging illegal reentry convictions must prove both procedural errors in removal proceedings and actual prejudice resulting from those errors to succeed in a collateral attack.