Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

willdue processdeportation
willdue processdeportation

Related Cases

Ashki v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Kholyavskiy v. Achim
View Case »
O.M.G. v. Wolf
View Case »
Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gonzalez-Valerio; U.S. v.

Facts

Gonzalez, a native of Mexico, became a permanent resident of the United States in 1990. He was convicted of a lewd act upon a child in 1994 and later for corporal injury upon a spouse in 1997. After being served a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings in 1998, he was ordered deported. He re-entered the U.S. multiple times and was eventually indicted for being an illegal alien found in the U.S. after deportation.

Gonzalez, a native of Mexico, became a permanent resident of the United States in 1990. He was convicted of a lewd act upon a child in 1994 and later for corporal injury upon a spouse in 1997. After being served a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings in 1998, he was ordered deported. He re-entered the U.S. multiple times and was eventually indicted for being an illegal alien found in the U.S. after deportation.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in dismissing the indictment against Gonzalez based on the alleged invalidity of the deportation order.

Whether the district court erred in dismissing the indictment against Gonzalez based on the alleged invalidity of the deportation order.

Rule

A collateral attack on a deportation order can succeed if the alien shows that their due process rights were violated and that they suffered prejudice as a result.

A collateral attack on a deportation order can succeed if the alien shows that their due process rights were violated and that they suffered prejudice as a result.

Analysis

The court determined that even if the immigration judge failed to inform Gonzalez of his eligibility for relief under former 212(c), he could not demonstrate prejudice because his prior conviction for willful infliction of corporal injury statutorily barred him from receiving such relief. The court noted that the burden was on Gonzalez to show plausible grounds for relief, which he failed to do.

The court determined that even if the immigration judge failed to inform Gonzalez of his eligibility for relief under former 212(c), he could not demonstrate prejudice because his prior conviction for willful infliction of corporal injury statutorily barred him from receiving such relief. The court noted that the burden was on Gonzalez to show plausible grounds for relief, which he failed to do.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the district court's dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The appellate court reversed the district court's dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the appellate court found that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on the invalidity of the deportation order.

The United States prevailed in the case because the appellate court found that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on the invalidity of the deportation order.

You must be