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

defendantjurisdictionmotiondue processjudicial reviewmotion to dismiss
defendantjurisdictionmotiondue processjudicial reviewmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Mohammed v. Sessions
View Case »
Rivera-Durmaz v. Chertoff
View Case »
Hanif v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Jacob v. Biden
View Case »
Marrero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gutierrez-Campos v. United States

Facts

Raul Gutierrez-Campos, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. as a child and lived there unlawfully for years. He was convicted in New York for attempted sale of a controlled substance and was subsequently removed from the U.S. in 2000. During his removal proceedings, he was not informed of his eligibility for voluntary departure, which he contended he would have sought had he known. After being charged with illegal reentry in 2020, he challenged the validity of the removal order.

Raul Gutierrez-Campos, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. as a child and lived there unlawfully for years. He was convicted in New York for attempted sale of a controlled substance and was subsequently removed from the U.S. in 2000. During his removal proceedings, he was not informed of his eligibility for voluntary departure, which he contended he would have sought had he known. After being charged with illegal reentry in 2020, he challenged the validity of the removal order.

Issue

Did the immigration judge have jurisdiction to order Gutierrez-Campos's removal, and was he denied due process by not being informed of his eligibility for voluntary departure?

Did the immigration judge have jurisdiction to order Gutierrez-Campos's removal, and was he denied due process by not being informed of his eligibility for voluntary departure?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d), a defendant can collaterally attack a removal order if they can show they exhausted available administrative remedies, were deprived of judicial review, and that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d), a defendant can collaterally attack a removal order if they can show they exhausted available administrative remedies, were deprived of judicial review, and that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.

Analysis

The court found that the immigration judge had jurisdiction despite the Notice to Appear lacking specific date and time information, as subsequent notices provided this information. However, it ruled that Gutierrez-Campos was not informed of his right to seek voluntary departure, which constituted a violation of due process. The court concluded that there was a reasonable probability he would have sought this relief.

The court found that the immigration judge had jurisdiction despite the Notice to Appear lacking specific date and time information, as subsequent notices provided this information. However, it ruled that Gutierrez-Campos was not informed of his right to seek voluntary departure, which constituted a violation of due process. The court concluded that there was a reasonable probability he would have sought this relief.

Conclusion

The court granted Gutierrez-Campos's motion to dismiss the illegal reentry charge, determining that the removal order was invalid due to procedural deficiencies.

The court granted Gutierrez-Campos's motion to dismiss the illegal reentry charge, determining that the removal order was invalid due to procedural deficiencies.

Who won?

Raul Gutierrez-Campos prevailed because the court found that he was denied due process and was eligible for voluntary departure, which invalidated the removal order.

Raul Gutierrez-Campos prevailed because the court found that he was denied due process and was eligible for voluntary departure, which invalidated the removal order.

You must be