T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. A RTU RO CI SN ERO S- FLO RES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50627 D . C . N o. 3: 09 -c r- 01 97 5-G T -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. A RTU RO CI SN ERO S- FLO RES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50628 D . C . N o. 3: 10 -c r- 00 91 4-L A B -1

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G or don T hom ps on, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r12, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED JAN 26 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSTh e H o n o r ab l e Ra l p h R. Er i c k s o n , Ch i e f D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f

o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orN orth D a kot a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

- 2- B ef ore: F E RN A N D E Z and C A L L A H A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and E R IC K S O N , C hi ef D i stri ctJudg e. **

I n thi s c ons ol i da t e d appe a l , A rtur o C i s ne r os - F l or e s c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i on f ol l ow i ng ac ondi t i ona l gui l ty pl e at o i l l e ga l e ntry a f t e rde port a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . C is n e r o s a ls o c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e v o c a tio n o f h is s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e f

r om apr i or§ 1326 c onvi c t i on. B oth c ha l l e nge s a r e ba s e d on a l l e ge d due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i ons r e s ul t i ng f r om de ni a l of

c ouns e l a thi s 1997 de port a t i on pr oc e e di ng. C i s ne r os c ont e nds tha the s houl d ha ve be e n t ol d, by c o u n s e l o rb y th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ( “I J ” ) , o f th e p o s s ib ility th a t h e c o u ld a v o id d e p o rt a t i o n b y ma rry i n g h i s g i r l f r i e n d . W e a f

f i rm. C i sner os fi rs tca m e t o the U ni t ed S t at es fr om M exi co w hen h e w as 20 ye ar s ol d, i n about1987. H e e nt e r e d w i thouti ns pe c t i on a nd be ga n l i vi ng i n O a kl a nd, C al i forni a. H e w as ho m el es s f or se vera l ye ar s, and w as conv i ct ed of se vera l m i s de m e a norof

f e ns e s f orpe tty the f

ta nd drug pos s e s s i on. I n 1994, C i s ne r os beca m e r om ant i ca l l y i nv ol ved w i th T i na G om ez , a U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze n, and b egan- 3-

ra i si ng her three chi l dren w i th h er . H e f athere d a chi l d w i th h eri n 1 99 9, bu tthat c h ild w a s g iv e n u p f

o ra d o p tio n . C i s ne r os ha s be e n de port e d a tl e a s te i ghtt i m e s s i nc e 1995. O n J a nua ry 14, 19 97 , C i sner os appeare d w i tho utcoun se l i n frontof the i m m i grat i on j ud ge (“ IJ ”) f o rah e a r in g in w h a t w a s a t le a s t h is th ir dd e p o rta tio n p r o c e e d in g . T h e I J to ld C i sner os thathe coul d h ave an att orney r epre se nthi m i f he w i shed, confi rm ed that C i sner os had rec ei ved the court ’ s l aw ye r l i st , and con fi rm ed thathe had b ee n i nf orm e d of hi s appe l l a t e r i ght s . H e a s ke d C i s ne r os i f he w a nt e d t i m e t o f

i nd a la w y e r , a n d C is n e r o s s a id y e s . T h e I J c o n tin u e d th e h e a r in g f o rtw o w e e k s to J a n u a ry 2 9 , 1 9 9 7 . C is n e r o s ap p e a r e d a t th e J a n u a ry 2 9 , 1 9 9 7 h e a r in g , a g a in w ith o u t c o u n s e l. T he I J not e d tha tC i s ne r os ha d m a de ar e que s tf orabond he a r i ng, butt ol d C i s ne r os th a t “w e ’r e n o t h e r e f

o rth a t r e a s o n [ ] to d a y .” T h e I J e x p la in e d th a t C is n e r o s c o u ld pr e s e nte vi de nc e a tthe he a r i ng, a nd tha tthe gove rnm e nta tt orne y c oul d pr e s e nt e vi de nc e a ga i ns thi m , a nd pr oc e e de d w i th the de port a t i on he a r i ng w i thout i n q u i ri n g w h eth er C i sn ero s st i l l w an t ed an att o rn ey. A ft erbei ng re m ov ed, C i sner os re ent er ed the coun tryw i tho utthe A tt orney G ener al ’ s perm i ss i on . H e w as arre st ed, and o n D ec em ber 200 8, C i sner os pl ed gui l ty t o be i ng ade port e d a l i e n f ound i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 30- 4-

da y s i m pr i s onm e nt . I n J une 2009, a f t e rbe i ng r e m ove d a nd a ga i n a rr e s t e d f or r e e nt e r i ng w i thoutpe rm i s s i on, C i s ne r os pl e d gui l ty t o be i ng ade port e d a l i e n f ound i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326. H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 8 m onths i m pr i s onm e nta nd 3 y e a r s of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd he w a s a ga i n r e m ove d. O n J a nua ry 27, 2010, C i s ne r os w a s a ga i n f ound i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd arre st ed. H e w as char ged w i th i l l egal re entryaf t erdepo rt at i on i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) and ( b) . C i s ne r os m ove d t o di s m i s s the i ndi c tm e nton the gr ound thatthe IJi n the 19 97 depo rt at i on proceedi ng had d eni ed hi m hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel a nd f a i l e d t o a dvi s e hi m of

pot e nt i a l r e l i e f

. H e a r gue d tha tthe J a nuary 1997 d ep o rt at i o n h eari n g w as “ fu n d am en t al l y u n fai r” b ecau se th e IJ fai l ed t o (1 ) ad v i se h im th a t h e c o u lda d

ju s t h is s ta tu s in p r o c e e d in g s b a s e d o n h is r e la tio n s h ip w ith h is U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze n “ com m on -l aw spou se , ” and (2) f i nd thathe had m ade a know i ng a nd vol unt a ry w a i ve rof hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l . H e a r gue d tha the ne e d not show ac tual prej ud i ce fr om the deni al of coun se l , bu tthathe w as prej ud i ce d because an att orney w ou l d h ave a dv i se d h i m t o form al i ze hi s c om m on -l aw m a rr i a g e wh i c h wo u l d h a v e o f f e r e d ab a s i s f

o ra d j u s tm e n to f

s t a tu s u n d e rI NA § 2 4 5 ( d ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d C i s ne r os ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , a nd C i s ne r os e nt e r e d a cond i t i on al gu i l ty pl eapu rs uantt o an agreement w i th the go vernm ent . T he D i stri ct- 5-

C ourts e nt e nc e d hi m t o 16 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , t o be f ol l ow e d by thr e e y e a r s of su p erv i sed rel ease. H i s su p erv i sed rel ease fro m h i s 2 0 0 9 co n v i ct i o n w as al so r e voke d, a nd he w a s s e nt e nc e d t o a n a ddi t i ona l c ons e c ut i ve t e rm of 12 m onths on h is 2 0 0 9 c o n v ic tio n . C is n e r o s ap p e a ls b o th th e n e w 2 0 1 0 c o n v ic tio n a n d h is s e n te n c e o n th e 2 0 0 9 s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e r e v o c a tio n . T he de ni a l of

am ot i on t o di s m i s s a n i ndi c tm e nti s r e vi e w e d de novo w he n, a s he r e , the m ot i on “ i s ba s e d on a l l e ge d due pr oc e s s de f e c t s i n the unde r l y i ng depo rt at i on proceedi ng . ” U ni te d State s v . Mor i e l-L una , 5 8 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . 1. C i s ne r os f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe I J s houl d ha ve a dvi s e d hi m tha the m i ght b e e n title d to a n a d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s d u e to h is r e la tio n s h ip w ith G o m e z . T h is a r g u m e n t f

a ils . A n I J m us t“ i nf

orm the r e s ponde nt[ i n ade port a t i on he a r i ng] of hi s appa r e nt el i gi bi l i ty t o app l y f

or any of the benefi t s [ of re l i ef fr om depo rt at i on ] enum er at ed i n thi s pa r a gr aph a nd . . . a f f or d hi m a n opportuni ty t o m a ke appl i c a t i on the r e f or d u r in g th e h e a r in g .” Mor an- E nr i quezv . I . N . S. , 884 F . 2d 420, 422 ( 9th C i r . 1989) (quo t i ng 8 C . F . R . § 2 42 . 17 (a ) ( 19 88 )) . H ow ever , the IJi s und erno du ty t o “ ac t cr ea t i vel y t o adv i se an i m m i grantof w ay s i n w hi ch hi s l egal prospect s a t fore st al l i ng depo rt at i on m i gh ti m prov e w i th fun dam ent al changes i n h i s s t atus. ”- 6-

Mor i e l-L una , 585 F . 3d a t1198. M or e ove r , the “ I J ha d no duty t o i nf orm hi m of re l i ef for w hi ch he w as no tel i gi bl e . . . . ” U ni ted Stat es v. L op ez -V

elasqu ez , 629 F .3 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( h o ld in g “th a t a n I J 's d u ty is lim ite d to i nform i ng an al i en of a r ea sonabl e possi bi l i ty thatthe al i en i s e l i gi bl e f or re l i ef at the t i m e of the heari ng ”) . H e r e , the I J w a s notr e qui r e d t o a dvi s e C i s ne r os of apos s i bl e a dj us tm e ntof s t a tus . T he f

a c t s a s pr e s e nt e d t o the I J w e r e tha tC i s ne r os ha d a“ gi r l f r i e nd, ” a nd he e xpr e s s l y s t a t e d he w a s notm a rr i e d t o he r . C ontr a ry t o C i s ne r os ’ s c ont e nt i ons i n hi s br i e f

s , he di d nota ta ny t i m e a dvi s e the I J tha the pl a nne d on m a rry i ng G om ez . “ W e do n otre qu i re IJ s t o specul at e abo utthe po ss i bi l i ty of ant i ci pat ed changes of ci rc um st ance s and advi se al i ens of f ac t s notsugg es t ed i n the re cord. ” Mor i e l-L una , 585 F . 3d a t1197. T he I J ha d no duty t o a dvi s e C i s ne r os aboutthe pos s i bi l i ty of

a dj us t i ng hi s s t a tus s houl d he m a rry hi s gi r l f r i e nd. 2. C i s ne r os ne xta r gue s tha the w a s de pr i ve d of hi s F i f th A m e ndm e nt r i ght s be c aus e he w a s de ni e d c ouns e l a thi s 1997 r e m ova l he a r i ng w i thout a f f irm a tiv e ly w a iv in g h is r ig h t to c o u n s e l. A lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t ap p a r e n tly c onc e de s tha tC i s ne r os ’ F i f th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d by de pr i va t i on of c o u n s e l, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a g r e e d , it is n o t c le a rth a t h is r ig h ts w e r e a c tu a lly v io la te d .- 7-

A r e s p o n d e n t in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s h a s aF if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l a t n o c o s t to th e g o v e rn m e n t. R am v. Mukasey , 5 2 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 1 ( 9 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). W e h av e “ rei t erat ed m an y t i m es th atan al i en can n o tap p ear p ro se w i tho uta kno w i ng and v ol un t ary w ai ver of the ri gh tt o cou nsel . ” I d. a t1242 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). T hi s m eans thatthe IJ“ ata m i ni m um . . . m ust[( 1)] i nqui r e w he the rthe pe t i t i one rw i s he s c ouns e l , [ ( 2) ] de t e rm i ne ar e a s onabl e pe r i od f orobt a i ni ng c ouns e l , a nd [ ( 3) ] a s s e s s w he the ra ny w a i ve rof c ouns e l i s know i ng and v ol un t ary. ” I

d. a t1241 ( quot i ng T

a w a dr u s v . A s h c r o

ft , 364 F . 3d 1099, 1103 ( 9 th C ir .2 0 0 4 ) ) . W e h a v e s tr ic tly e n f o r c e d th e s e r e q u ir e m e n ts a n d r e q u ir e d a n I J to e lic it a n e x p r e s s w a iv e ro f th e r ig h t to c o u n s e l b y a s k in g th e a lie n if h e d e s ir e d to c ont i nue pr o s e a nd “ di r e c t [ i ng] . . . que s t i ons t o [ a l i e n] c onc e rni ng the i m pl i ca t i on s of proce edi ng w i tho utan att orney. ” I d. a t1242 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on o m itte d ) . T hi s i s nott o i m pl y a n a l i e n c a n “ ga m e the s y s t e m ” a nd pos tpone de port a t i on pr oc e e di ngs i nde f i ni t e l y s i m pl y by notobt a i ni ng c ouns e l a nd r e f us i ng t o w a i ve hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l . A f t e rw a i t i ng “ ar e a s onabl e pe r i od f orobt a i ni ng coun se l , ” the IJcan p roce ed even tho ug h the al i en i s notre pres ent ed. “ H ow ever , i n or de rt o pr oc e e d w i thoutc ouns e l , a n I J m us tc om pl y w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of- 8-

T aw adr us , and d et erm i ne, i n the abse nce of a s ho w i ng of go od cause f or an addi t i on al cont i nu ance , thatthe ri gh tt o cou nsel has bee n forfe i t ed. ” I d. H er e, the IJdi d n otexpres sl y m ake s uch a det erm i nat i on . T hati s nott o say it w o u ld h a v e b e e n e rr o rto p r o c e e d w ith o u t g iv in g C is n e r o s a d d itio n a l tim e to ob t ai n cou nsel , es peci al l y s i nce C i sner os di d n otre qu es taddi t i on al t i m e. T he IJ had p re vi ou sl y gi ven C i sner os tw o w ee ks t o o bt ai n cou nsel af t erensuri ng that C i sner os al re ady had the l i stof fr ee att orneys . C i sner os do es no tar gu e thathe w as pr e ve nt e d f

r om obt a i ni ng c ouns e l dur i ng tha tt i m e , orof f e ra ny e xpl a na t i on f

or w hy he f a i l e d t o obt a i n c ouns e l . “ A bs e ntas how i ng of c l e a rabus e , w e typi c a l l y do no tdi sturb an IJ' s di sc re t i on ary dec i si on no tt o con t i nu e ahear i ng . ” B i w otv. G on zalez , 403 F . 3d 1094, 1099 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . H a d the I J r e f us e d t o gr a nt C i s ne r os a ddi t i ona l t i m e t o obt a i n c ouns e l , the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on i tw oul d ha ve b e e n c le a re rr o r . H ow ever , even i f w e a ss um e, as the di stri ctcourtdi d, thatC i sner os w as de ni e d c ouns e l , tha tdoe s note nd the i nqui ry ore nt i t l e C i s ne r os t o r e l i e f . W e ha ve de ni e d c ha l l e nge s t o unde r l y i ng r e m ova l s w he r e the a l i e ns a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of the r i ghtt o c ouns e l i n the unde r l y i ng r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs unl e s s the a l i e n c a n s how p r e ju d ic e . U

ni te d State s v . C e rda- P e na , 79 9 F . 2d 13 74 , 13 79 (9th C i r. 19 86 ) ( even as sum i ng the defendanthad b ee n d eni ed coun se l , he di d n otshow thatthi s deni al- 9-

“ a c tua l l y ha d the pot e nt i a l f ora f f e c t i ng the out c om e of

the de port a t i on p r o c e e d in g s ” ) ; U

n ite d S ta te s v . V

illa Fa b e la , 88 2 F . 2d 43 4, 43 9-40 (9th C i r. 19 89 ), ov e rr ule d i n par t

on othe rgr ounds by U

ni te d State s v . P r oa- T

ov ar , 975 F . 2d 192, 59 5 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( en banc) (I J’ s a l l eged fai l ure t o adv i se of the avai l abl e of f re e l e ga l s e rvi c e pr ogr a m s di d note nt i t l e de f e nda ntt o r e l i e f

be c aus e he ha d not

“ de m ons tr a t [ e d] tha tthe c l a i m e d pr oc e dur a l f l a w s i n hi s de port a t i on pr oc e e di ng w er e pre j ud i ci al ” and he w as no tel i gi bl e f or re l i ef fr om re m ov al ). T aken t og ether, these ca se s r equi re C i sner os t o sho w he suff er ed prej ud i ce as a r es ul tof the deni al of c ouns e l i n or de rt o obt a i n r e l i e f . T o s how pr e

j udi c e , C i s ne r os m us ts how tha the had “ pl ausi bl e groun ds fr om re l i ef fr om depo rt at i on . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. A rc e- H erna ndez , 1 6 3 F .3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . C i s ne r os c ont e nds tha tthe abs e nc e of a n a tt orne y “ pot e nt i a l l y a f f e c t e d the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s, ” bec ause – g i ven h i s l on g-t erm , com m i tt ed r e l a t i ons hi p i n 1997 – a n a tt orne y w oul d ha ve a dvi s e d hi m t o ge tm a rr i e d a nd th e r e b y o p e n a n a v e n u e f o rr e lie f . C is n e r o s c o u ld n o t h a v e s h o w n p lau s ib le g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f f r o m d e p o rta tio n b e c au s e h e w a s n o t e lig ib le f o rr e lie f . H e c o u ld no thave adj ust ed hi s s t atus t o thatof a l aw ful perm anentre si dentun t i l he a c tu a llyS om e 14 y e a r s a f t e rthe c l a i m e d de pr i va t i on of c ouns e l , C i s ne r os 1 r e m a in s in e lig ib le f

o ra n a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s b e c au s e h e is s till n o t m a rr ie d .

- 10- m arri ed G om e z , a nd m a rr i a ge w a s ne i the ri m m i ne ntnorr e a s onabl y c e rt a i n a tthe t i m e of hi s r em ov al hear i ng i n 1 99 7. T hu s, C i sner os cann otshow prej ud i ce . 1 3. C i s ne r os a l s o c ha l l e nge s the r e voc a t i on of hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e f r om h is 2 0 0 9 c o n v ic tio n . I n m a k in g h is c h a lle n g e h e a s k s u s to “c r e a te a n e x c e p tio n to the generalrul e art i cul at ed i n” U ni te d State s v . Si m m ons , 81 2 F . 2d 56 1 (9th C i r. 19 87 ), thata def

endantm ayno tchal l enge the val i di ty of hi s c on vi ct i on on di re ct appe a l of as upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e r e voc a t i on s e nt e nc e . “ T he c onvi c t i on m a y be col l at er al l y a tt ac ked o nl y i n a se para t e procee di ng un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. . . . ” I d. a t5 6 3 . H i s r a t i o n a l e i s th a tb e c au s e th e 2 0 0 9 c o n v i c t i o n w a s b a s e d o n th e s a me u n d e r ly in g 1 9 9 7 d e p o rta tio n a s th e 2 0 1 0 c o n v ic tio n , if th a t d e p o rta tio n is i nva l i da t e d due t o ade pr i va t i on of c ouns e l the n he c a nnotbe gui l ty of the 2009 in c id e n t e ith e r . W e d e c lin e to c r e a te s u c h a n e x c e p tio n . C is n e r o s v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e d h is ri gh tt o chal l enge the 20 09 conv i ct i on and sent ence , and h e w i l l be hel d t o that wa i v e re v e n i f

h e c h a l l e n g e s al a t e rc o n v i c t i o n . F u rth e rm o r e , f o rth e r e a s o n s we af fi rm C i sner os’ 20 10 conv i ct i on , w e w ou l d al so af fi rm hi s 200 9 con vi ct i on w er e w e to r e a c h its m e r its .- 11-

T he IJdi d n othave a duty i n 1 99 7 t o adv i se C i sner os t o g etm arri ed so that h e c o u ld a d

ju s t h is s ta tu s . E v e n if

w e a s s u m e th e I J v io la te d C is n e r o s ’ F if th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l i n hi s 1997 de port a t i on he a r i ng, he c a nnots how p r e ju d ic e . C is n e r o s h a s w a iv e d h is r ig h t to c h a lle n g e h is 2 0 0 9 c o n v ic tio n , a n d in an y ev en t , th ere i s n o b asi s fo r h i s ch al l en g e t o th e rev o cat i o n o f su p erv i sed rel ease b e c au s e w e d o n o t in v a lid a te th e 1 9 9 7 d e p o rta tio n . A FFI R M ED .