NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JORGE ANTONIO ZAMORA GONZALEZ, AKA Jorge Gonzalez, AKA Antonio Zamora, AKA Jorge Zamora, AKA Jorge Antonio Zamora,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 50422

D.C. No. 2:18

- cr

- 00381

- PA

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 7, 2020 * * San Francisco, California

Before: BOGGS, ** * M. SMITH, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by desi gnation. 

# FILED

DEC 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Jorge Zamora Gonzalez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion

to dismiss his indictment for reentry after removal

. Because the parties are familiar

with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

A defendant may collaterally attack the validity of a predicate removal order

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). To mount a successful collateral attack on the removal
order, the defendant must show “(1) [he] exhausted any administrative remedies that

may have bee n available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation

proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived [him] of the

opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally
unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). Und er our precedent s , a “predicate removal order
satisfies the condition of being ‘fundamentally unfair’ for purposes of § 1326(d)(3)
when the deportation proceeding violated the alien’s due process rights and the alien
suffered prejudice as a result.” Unite d States v. Arias

- Ordonez , 597 F.3d 972, 976

(9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Ubaldo

- Figueroa , 364 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th

Cir. 2004)).
Zamora Gonzalez’s collateral attack on his underlying deportation order does

not satisfy the requirements of § 132 6(d). Zamora Gonzalez does not establish that

he suffered prejudice as a result of the alleged defect in the immigration proceeding

because he fails to show that it was plausible the immigration court would have3

granted his application for a § 212(h) waiv er. Zamora Gonzalez does not present

sufficient evidence demonstrating that his family will suffer extreme hardship if he

were to be deported

. See United States v. Muro

- Inclan , 249 F.3d 1180, 118 5 (9th

Cir. 2001) ( citing United States v. Arce

- Hernandez , 163 F.3d 559, 564 (9th Cir.

1998)) . Unlike the defendant in United States v. Arrieta , 224 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.

2000), Zamora Gonzalez fails to provide “that ‘something more’ required . . . to

‘remove [his] case from the “ typical ” hardship category.’” Muro

- Inclan , 249 F.3d

at 1186 (alteration in original) (quoting Arrieta , 224 F.3d at 1082).

Furthermore, the district court properly decline d to address Zamora
Gonzalez’s claim that the immigration court did not have jurisdiction over his

deportation proceedings . Zamora Gonzalez has not shown good cause for his failure

to include his jurisdictional argument in his original motion to dismiss the

indictment. See United States v. Aguilera

- Rios , 769 F.3d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 2014).

As such, we also decline to address his claim.

AFFIRMED.