FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 29, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16111 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 2 4 - C R - F T M- 9 9 DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C L A U D I O E N R I Q U E N U N E Z R O J A S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 29, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C l audi o E nri qu e N un ez R oj as (“N un ez ”) appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on for i l l egal re -e ntryaf

t erprevi ou sl y havi ng been conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed fe l on y und er8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . N u n e z d id n o t a v a il h im s e lf o f th e o p p o rtu n ity t o p et i t i on the A tt orney G ener al or S ec re t ary f or H om el and S ec uri ty f or re a d m is s io n in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . B e c au s e h e d id n o t a v a il h im s e lf o f th is re as on abl e l egal al t ernat i ve t o the cr i m i nal cond uctof i l l egal l y r e- ent er i ng , N un ez c o u ld n o t e s tab lis h an e c e s s ityd e f e n s e , a n d th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id n o t e rrin p r e c l u d i n g h i m f

r o m p r e s e n t i n g i t . We A F F I R M.

I . FA C TS N un ez w as i nd i ct ed on on e c ou ntof i l l egal l y r e- ent er i ng the U ni t ed S t at es a f t e rpr e vi ous l y ha vi ng be e n c onvi c t e d of a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony . A c c or di ng t o the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e port( “ P S I ” ) , N une z w a s ac i t i z e n a nd na t i ona l of C ol om bi a, beca m e are si dental i en i n 1 97 4, w as conv i ct ed i n 1 99 2 o f s exual a c t i vi ty w i th ac hi l d, w a s de port e d i n 2003, a nd r e - e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s on 1 M a y 2 0 0 5 , w ith o u t h a v in g o b ta in e d th e p e rm is s io n o f th e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l o rh is s u c c e s s o r , th e S e c r e ta ry f o rH o m e la n d S e c u r ity . A t tr ia l, N u n e z in f

o rm e d th e d is tr ic t ju d g e th a t h e in te n d e d to p r e s e n t a ne c e s s i ty de f

e ns e , a nd the j udge not e d tha tapr of f e rw oul d be r e qui r e d be f or e he w o u ld a llo w e v id e n c e to b e p r e s e n te d o n th a t is s u e . N u n e z p r o f f e r e d th a t, p r io rto3

hi s de port a t i on, he ope r a t e d as uc c e s s f ul pa i nt i ng bus i ne s s tha tpr ovi de d f or hi m se l f, hi s w i fe (ast ay -a t -hom e m other) , and thei r daugh t er , w ho w as an ho no rr ol l s tude nt . W he n de port e d, N une z f i r s ts t a y e d w i th hi s br othe r , but , be c aus e of hi s a ge a nd poore c onom i c c ondi t i ons , he w a s unabl e t o f i nd w ork. H i s w i f

e a nd d au g h te r , b o th U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n s , a tte m p te d to m o v e w ith h im to C o lo m b ia . B e c au s e th e y s p o k e n o S p a n is h , th e y w e r e s u b je c t to th e g e n e r a l d a n g e r s o f lif e in C o lo m b iaa n d , c o n s e q u e n tly , r e tu rn e d to th e U n ite d S ta te s . N un ez ’ s w i fe w as un abl e t o fi nd w ork i n the U ni t ed S t at es because of her l acko f ed u cat i o n o r j o b sk i l l s an d i n ab i l i ty t o co p e w i th th e u p h eav al i n th ei r l i v es. T he N un ez es w er e unabl e t o m ake m ort gage paym ent s, and thei r hom e w as fore cl osed. In C ol om bi a, N un ez w as no l on ger permi tt ed t o l i ve w i th h i s brother, a n d s ta y e d in h o te ls u n til h is m o n e y r a n o u t, a t w h ic h p o in t h e b e c a m e h o m e le s s . H i s w i fe and d augh t erm ov ed i nt o a re nt al prop erty butw er e abo utt o b e e vi ct ed b ecau se th ey w ere u n ab l e t o m ak e ren tp aym en t s. A s a resu l to f th ese ev en t s, N u n e z ’s d au g h te rb e g an ab u s in g a lc o h o l a n d m a r iju a n a , w a s e x p e lle d f r o m s c h o o l, and w as ho spi t al i ze d tw i ce for a l coho l po i soni ng . N un ez ’ s i m m i grat i on att orney a dvi s e d hi m tha the w a s note l i gi bl e t o r e turn t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd tha the w o u ld b e u n ab le to o b ta in aw a iv e rto r e - e n te r . A d d itio n a lly , e v e n if s u c c e s s f u l,4

th e p ro ce ss w o u ldh av e tak en fo u r to fiv e m o n th s, to o lo n g in v iew o f h is fa m il y’s im p e n d in g e v ic tio n . T he di s tr i c tj udge a s s um e d tha tthe f a c t s pr of f e r e d w e r e true a nd c oul d be pr ove n butf

ound tha tthe ne c e s s i ty de f e ns e w a s nota va i l abl e t o N une z . R 3 a t58- 61 . T he j ud ge st at ed that“ a per son i s notal l ow ed t o m ake thatdet erm i nat i on [that the A tt orney G ener al or S ec re t ary of H om el and S ec uri ty w ou l d n othave grant ed c ons e ntt o r e - e nt e r ] a nd the r e by s i m pl y f or e go the a va i l abl e r e m e di e s , a nd tha tthe defe nd anthad reas on abl e l egal al t ernat i ves a vai l abl e, and thathe had t o u se tho se , a n d th a t h e d id n o t u s e th o s e in th is c a s e .” I d . a t 5 9 - 6 0 . T h e ju d g e a lte rn a tiv e ly hel d that , as sum i ng N un ez w as corr ec tthathe had n o rea sonabl y a vai l abl e l egal a l t e rna t i ve s , ne c e s s i ty c oul d ne ve rbe ade f e ns e t o i l l e ga l r e - e ntry . I d. a t60. T he j ury f

ound N une z gui l ty , a nd the di s tr i c tj udge s e nt e nc e d hi m t o 36 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nt . R 1- 61 a t1- 2. T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON N u n ez ar g u es th ath e m ad e a p ro f fer su f fi ci en tt o p resen ta n ecessi ty d efen se t o th e j u ry b ecau se (1 ) h e faced th e i m m i n en th arm o f th e d estru ct i o n o f h i s fam i l y; (2) the j ury c ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed thatthe destruct i on of hi s f am i l y w as a gre at er e v il th a n h is ille g a l r e - e n try ; ( 3 ) th e r e w a s ac le a rc au s a l r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n h is re -e ntryand the harm thathe soug htt o p re vent ; and (4) pet i t i on i ng the A tt orney5

G ener al for r e- entryw as no ta vi abl e l egal al t ernat i ve. N un ez as se rt s that pe t i t i oni ng w a s notvi abl e be c aus e hi s i m m i gr a t i on a tt orne ya dvi s e d hi m tha the w a s in e lig ib le f

o rr e - a d m is s io n a n d th a t, e v e n if r e - a d m is s io n w e r e g r a n te d , it w oul d ha ve t a ke n f

ourorf i ve m onths , dur i ng w hi c h t i m e hi s f a m i l y ’ s c ondi t i on w o u ld h a v e f

u rth e rd e te r io r a te d .

“ We r evi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ' s det erm i nat i on w hether adefe nd anthas setfo rth a su f

fi ci en tp ro f

fer t o p erm i tth e d efen se o f n ecessi ty. ” U n i t ed St at es v . D i c ks , 338 F . 3d 1256, 1257 ( 1 1th C i r . 2003) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T he de f e ns e of n e c e s s ityo rju s tif

ic a tio n is a n a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n s e to s o m e c r im in a l s ta tu te s , a n d , if av ai l ab l e, th e d efen d an tb ears th e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g th e d efen se b y a prepon derance of the evi dence. Id. A l tho ug h w e have notdet erm i ned w hether a de f e ns e of ne c e s s i ty c a n be pr e s e nt e d a ga i ns tac ha r ge of i l l e ga l r e - e ntry, w e ha ve de t e rm i ne d tha t , t o the e xt e nts uc h ade f e ns e m a y be pos s i bl e , i tw oul d r e qui r e the defe nd antt o sho w , am on g o ther thi ng s, thathe “ ‘ had n o rea sonabl e l egal a l t e rna t i ve t o vi ol a t i ng the l a w . ’ ” I d. a t1258 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v . D e l e ve aux, 20 5 F . 3d 12 92 , 12 97 (1 1th C i r . 20 00 )) . “ In general , pet i t i on i ng the A tt orney G ener al for r e- entryi s avi abl e and re as on abl e l egal al t ernat i ve t o i l l egal re -e ntry. ” Id .6

E ven i f nec es si ty or j ust i fi ca t i on i s an avai l abl e def ense t o i l l egal re -e ntry unde r8 U . S . C . § 1326, N une z di d note s t abl i s h ane c e s s i ty de f e ns e . H e bor e the b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g th e d e f

e n s e , a n d N u n e z d id n o t p r o f f e rs u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u g g e s t th a t th e ap p lic a tio n p r o c e s s w a s n o t av iab le o rr e a s o n ab le le g a l a lte rn a tiv e . T he op i ni on of N un ez ’ s i m m i grat i on att orney— thata pet i t i on w ou l d h ave been fut i l e— do es no tchange thi s r equi re m ent . T he att orney’ s opi ni on , “ ho w ever l i ke l y, ” w a s s t i l l s pe c ul a t i on. S e e i d. a t1257 ( di s c us s i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A re l l ano-R i vera , 24 4 F . 3d 11 19 , 11 25 (9th C i r. 20 01 )) . T he po ss i bl e del ay betw ee n the i ni t i at i on of the appl i ca t i on proces s and i t s c on cl usi on i s, l i kew i se , i nsuffi ci entt o render a pet i t i on un vi abl e or unreas on abl e. Id. at12 57 (hol di ng that ape t i t i on t o the A tt orne y G e ne r a l w a s avi abl e l e ga l a l t e rna t i ve w he r e the de f e nda ntpr of

f e r e d tha the s uf

f e r e d f r om A I D S , w a s “ ne a rde a d a tthe t i m e , ” a nd i l l e ga l l yr e - e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n or de rt o s e e k tr e a tm e nt ) . A c c or di ngl y , the di stri ctj ud ge di d n oterr i n p re vent i ng N un ez fr om pres ent i ng a nec es si ty def ense . I I I . CONCL US I ON B e c aus e N une z f

a i l e d t o pe t i t i on f

i r s tthe A tt orne y G e ne r a l orS e c r e t a ry f or H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty f

orr e a dm i s s i on t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s , he c oul d note s t abl i s h a

“ n ecessi ty d efen se, ” ev en i f h e co u l d est ab l i sh i t s ap p ro p ri at en ess. A cco rd i n g l y, h i s co n v i ct i o n fo r i l l eg al re-en try i s AF F I RME D.