12-2527-cr United States v. Ulloa-Mejia
**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 
**SUMMARY ORDER**

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **.** At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 2 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 3 on the 6 thday of May, two thousand thirteen. 4 5 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 6 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 7 J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, * 8 Circuit Judges

. 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 Appellee , 15 16 -v.- 12-2527-cr 17 18 FREDIS HONAN ULLOA-MEJIA, 19 20 Defendant-Appellant

. 21 22 23 FOR APPELLANT: Lisa A. Peebles, Federal Public Defender, 24 Office of the Federal Public Defender for 25 the Districts of Northern New York and 26 Vermont, Syracuse, NY. 27 28 FOR APPELLEE: Paul D. Silver, Daniel C. Gardner, 29 Assistant United States Attorneys, for 30

* Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.Richard S. Hartunian, United States 1 Attorney for the Northern District of New 2 York, Syracuse, NY. 3 4 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 5 Northern District of New York (Mordue, J. ). 6 7 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 8
**AND DECREED**that the judgment of the United States District 9 Court for the Northern District of New York is **AFFIRMED**
. 10 Defendant-Appellant Fredis Honan Ulloa-Mejia appeals 11 from a judgment pursuant to an April 27, 2012 Memorandum 12 Decision and Order by the United States District Court for 13 the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J. ) denying 14 Defendant’s motion to dismiss the one-count indictment 15 charging Defendant with illegally re-entering the United 16 States after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 17 1326(a). Defendant argued that the prior in absentia 18 removal order could not be used as a predicate for 19 establishing a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because it 20 was issued, he asserted, in violation of his due process 21 rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 22 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 23 presented for review. 24 In 2005, at age fifteen, Defendant traveled from 25 Honduras to the United States. He was apprehended in Texas 26
2and issued a notice to appear on an unspecified future date. 1 Defendant was directed to update immigration officials of 2 any change in his address to ensure that Defendant received 3 notice of the date for his hearing. There is no evidence 4 that Defendant informed immigration officials that he 5 relocated to North Carolina to live with his mother. 6 Defendant was ordered removed in absentiain October 2005. 7 In February 2012, after he was denied refugee status in 8 Canada, Defendant again entered the United States illegally. 9 He was immediately apprehended and charged with violating 8 10 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Defendant pled guilty but reserved the 11 right to appeal the district court’s order denying his 12 motion to dismiss the indictment. 13 A defendant may collaterally attack the validity of a 14 deportation order upon which a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 15 1326(a) is based. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d); United States v. 16 Calderon , 391 F.3d 370, 374 (2d Cir. 2004). “To do so, 17 however, an alien must ‘demonstrate [ ] that (1) [he] 18 exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been 19 available to seek relief against the order; (2) the 20 deportation proceedings at which the order was issued 21 improperly deprived [him] of the opportunity for judicial 22

3review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally 1 unfair.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)) (alterations in 2 original). 3 We agree with the district court that Defendant failed 4 to satisfy any of the three requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 5 1326(d). Defendant principally argues that the 2005 removal 6 order violated due process because Defendant was fifteen 7 years old at the time he received the notice to appear and 8 neither he nor his parents were notified of the scheduled 9 time and place for Defendant’s hearing. However, 10 immigration officials need only inform the parents of a 11 “minor,” defined in the immigration context as an individual 12 “under the age of 14.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.2. 13 In addition, Defendant failed to provide immigration 14 officials with his new address after he relocated to North 15 Carolina, despite being explicitly informed that he was 16 required to keep his contact information current. It is not 17 fundamentally unfair to enter an order of removal in 18 absentiaagainst an individual who does not receive notice 19 by virtue of his failure to provide immigration officials 20 with a current address. See , e.g. , United States v. 21 Hinojosa-Perez , 206 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2000). 22

4For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 1 court is hereby **AFFIRMED**
. 2
FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4 5 6

5