* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20124

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMIRO PIZANO-CORONA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-00-CR-21-1)

_________________________________________________________________

August 31, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ramiro Pizano-Corona, a/k/a Henry Miranda, appeals his

conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8

U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Pizano’s motion to suppress his

prior deporta tion on due process grounds was denied

. Pizano

asserts his prior deportation proceedings (1988) violated

princip les of due process because there is no evidence the

immigration judge informed him he had the right to counsel or might

be eligible for relief from deporta tion. Pizano suggests these

omissions invalidated his waiver of his right to appeal; and he2

contends he was prejudiced by the immigration judge’s alleged

failure to inform him of the possibility of relief from deportation

because there is a reasonable probability he would ha ve been

eligible for relief from deportation based on extreme hardship.

An alien may collaterally challenge a deportation order used

as an element of a criminal offense. U nited States v.

Mendoza-Lopez

, 481 U.S. 828, 838-39 (1987). To suppress a

deportation order charged in a § 1326 prosecution, an alien must

establish: the deportation hearing was “fundamentally unfair”; the

hearing effectively eliminated his right to challenge the hearing

in a judicial review of the deportation order; and he suffered

actual prejudice, meaning there is a reasonable likelihood he would

not have been deported absent the c hallenged errors in the

deportation proceeding. U nited States v. H ernanzez-Avalos , 251

F.3d 505, 507 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. A sibor , 109 F.3d

1023, 1038 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 522 U.S. 902 (1997); United

States v. Benitez-Villafuerte

, 186 F.3d 651, 658-59 & n.8 (5th Cir.

1999), cert. denied

, 528 U.S. 1097 (200 0)(requiring showing of

a ctual prejudice while also noting Congress’ 1996 enactment of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(d)).

Pizano’s le gal challenges to the constitutionality of the

deportation proceeding are reviewed de novo ; the district court’s

f actual findings based on live testimony at the suppression

hearing, only for clear error. United States v. Lopez-Vasquez

, 227

F.3d 476, 481-82 (5th Cir. 2000); U nited States v. SierraHernandez

, 192 F.3d 501, 503 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied

, 5283

U.S . 1178 (2000); U nited States v. Encarnacion-Galvez

, 964 F.2d

402, 409 (5th Cir. ), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 945 (1992).

Pizano’s lengthy criminal history demonstrates he was

presumptively deportable under th e law in effect at his 1988

deportation hearing (as well as under current immigration law) and

that he was (and is) ineligible for any type of relief from, or

suspension of, deportation. S ee 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii),

1228(c), 1229b (West, WESTLAW through May 28, 2001); 8 U.S.C. §§

1251, 1254 (1982 & Supp. V 1987). Thus, Pizano cannot demonstrate

he was prejudiced by errors, if any, in the 1988 deportation

proceeding. Benitez-Villafuerte , 186 F.3d at 658.

Pizano also claims sho wing actual prejudice is not required

because “structural” error was comm itted when he was allegedly

denied counsel in relation to his 1988 deportation hearing. The

district court fo und, however, that the January 1988 show cause

order informed Pizano he could be represented by counsel. Pizano

admitted at the suppression hearing that his signature appeared on

t he order. The district court did not commit clear error in

finding Pizano was informed of his right to counsel.

AFFIRMED