Case ID: f-appx_431/html/0598-01.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. Agustin Guzman AMEZCUA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50323.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 3, 2011.
    
    Filed May 6, 2011.
    James Michael Left, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eduardo A. Paredes, Law Office of Eduardo A. Paredes, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Agustín Guzman Amezcua appeals his conviction and the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. We affirm.

To sustain “a collateral challenge to the use of a deportation as an element of a criminal offense,” United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 839, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987), a criminal defendant must demonstrate that (1) he exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order, (2) the prior immigration proceedings improperly deprived him of an opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). Amezcua failed to do so.

Most importantly, at the time of the 2001 removal proceedings, Amezcua was ineligible for naturalization because of his 2000 California conviction for an aggravated felony, so he was not prejudiced by the immigration judge’s actions and there was nothing fundamentally unfair about the entry of the removal order. His conviction statutorily barred him from establishing good moral character. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(8). That his record had been clean for the five years prior to his application was not enough to make eligible for naturalization at the time of the removal hearing. An alien must continue to maintain good moral character from the date of his application until he takes the oath of citizenship. United States v. Dang, 488 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.2007); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(1).

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