United States v. Ramirez-Diaz

District Court, D. Oregon
359 F.Supp.3d 994 (2019)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An expedited removal order is fundamentally unfair and cannot serve as the predicate for an illegal reentry prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 if the removal proceeding violated the alien's due process rights and the alien can show plausible grounds for relief from removal they were denied.

Facts:

Vincente Ramirez-Diaz had lived and worked in the United States since he was 13 years old.
At the time of his 2011 removal proceeding, Ramirez-Diaz was married and had two U.S. citizen children.
Prior to 2011, Ramirez-Diaz had no immigration violations and his criminal record consisted only of misdemeanor offenses.
In 2011, Ramirez-Diaz was apprehended and subjected to an expedited removal proceeding.
During the proceeding, an immigration official made a determination of inadmissibility and issued an order of removal.
The administrative record for the 2011 removal proceeding contained a Form I-860 (Notice and Order of Expedited Removal) that did not bear Ramirez-Diaz's signature acknowledging receipt.
Pursuant to the 2011 order, Ramirez-Diaz was removed from the United States.
In 2017, Ramirez-Diaz was found within the District of Oregon.

Procedural Posture:

The U.S. government indicted Vincente Ramirez-Diaz in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The charge was predicated on a 2011 expedited removal order.
Ramirez-Diaz filed a motion to dismiss the indictment.
In his motion, Ramirez-Diaz made a collateral challenge to the legality of the underlying 2011 removal order, arguing it was fundamentally unfair.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an expedited removal order violate due process, rendering it fundamentally unfair and an invalid predicate for a subsequent illegal reentry charge, when the administrative record fails to show the alien signed the form acknowledging receipt of the charges, and where the alien had plausible grounds for discretionary relief?

Opinions:

Majority - Ann Aiken

Yes, the expedited removal order violated due process and was fundamentally unfair. A prior removal order cannot be used to sustain an illegal reentry charge if it was obtained in violation of due process and the defendant was prejudiced as a result. The court found a due process violation because the government failed to follow its own regulations, which require an alien to sign the reverse side of Form I-860 to acknowledge receipt of the charges. The absence of this signature in the record means there is insufficient evidence that Ramirez-Diaz received constitutionally required notice and an opportunity to respond. The court further found prejudice because Ramirez-Diaz had plausible grounds for relief; specifically, he could have been granted a 'withdrawal of application for admission.' Considering his long-term U.S. residency, strong family ties (a wife and two U.S. citizen children), and minor criminal history, it was plausible that an immigration officer could have exercised discretion to grant this relief, which would have avoided the formal removal order.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces that even in streamlined administrative processes like expedited removal, strict adherence to procedures that protect due process rights is mandatory. It demonstrates how a procedural failure, such as the lack of a required signature on a notice form, can be elevated to a constitutional violation that invalidates the entire proceeding. The case provides a clear framework for defendants to collaterally attack prior removal orders in § 1326 prosecutions by linking a procedural defect to the loss of a plausible opportunity for discretionary relief. This holding pressures immigration authorities to maintain meticulous records and follow all regulatory steps, as failures can undermine subsequent criminal prosecutions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Ramirez-Diaz (2019)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"