Case ID: f-appx_579/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando HERNANDEZ-MORALES, aka Alvaro Hernandez, aka Armando Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10195.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 11, 2014.
    Filed June 16, 2014.
    Jane E. McLaughlin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
    Tyrone Mitchell, Esquire, Tyrone Mitchell P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant>-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant Armando Hernandez-Morales appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court properly found that the 2007 predicate removal was valid under § 1326(d) because Hernandez-Morales failed to show that he was deprived of judicial review in 2007. The 2007 predicate removal was a reinstatement of the 2001 Administrative Order and did not rely in any way on the defective 2006 removal. As a result, Hernandez-Morales was not entitled to further review in 2007 unless he challenged the 2007 proceedings themselves or made a fear-of-persecution claim in 2007.

DHS did not deprive Hernandez-Morales of the opportunity for judicial review in 2007. DHS obtained the 2001 Administrative Order, confirmed that Hernandez-Morales was the same alien who was previously removed, confirmed that Hernandez-Morales unlawfully reentered the United States, and gave Hernandez-Morales written notice of the determination that he was subject to removal. See Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 956 (9th Cir.2012). Hernandez-Morales then indicated that he did not wish to contest this determination and signed an affidavit stating that he did not have any fear of returning to Mexico. Because Hernandez-Morales has failed to show that he was deprived of judicial review in the 2007 proceedings, he cannot collaterally attack the 2007 predicate removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1826(d); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Villalobos, 724 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir.2013).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.