N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSE JESUS M ENDEZ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50014

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-00645-H-1 M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t

C ourt Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 11, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ENNETT, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt JoseM e nde z a

ppe a l s from

a c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for im prope r re e ntry

by an a lie n in theUnite d

State s, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED JAN 27 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa t ion.1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing M e nde z ’ s m otion under 8

U.S.C . § 1326(d) to dism iss theinform ation. “ W e re vie w d enov o a c la im tha t a de fe c t in a

prior re m ova l proc e e ding pre c l ude s re lia n c e on the fina l re m o va l orde r in a subse que nt § 1326 proc e e ding.” U nite d State

s v . Re y e s-Bonilla , 671 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita tion omitte d). A de fe nda

nt c olla te ra lly atta c king a

re m ova l orde r m

ust show: (1) he
e xha uste d his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s; (2) the de porta tion proc e e dings im

prope rly de nie d him

judic ia l re vie w; a

nd (3) the e ntry of the re m ova l orde r wa s funda m e nta lly unfa i r. 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d). W e have he ld tha t a n unde rly ing
re m ova l orde r is funda

m e nta l ly unfa ir “ whe n

the de porta

tion proc e e d ing viola

te d the a lie n’ s due proc e s s rights a nd the a lie n suffe re d pre

judic e a s a

re sult.” Re

y esBonilla , 671 F.3d a

t 1043 (quoting Unite d State s v . Arias-Ordone

z , 597 F.3d 972, 976 (9th C i r. 2010)). “ Whe re the re le va nt form of re lie f is disc re tiona ry , the a lie n m ust m ake a

‘ pla u sible ’ showing tha

t the fa c t s pre se nte d would c a u se the Attorne y Ge ne ra l to e x e rc ise disc re tion in his fa vor.” Unite d State

s v . Rojas-Pe d

roza , 716 F.3d 1253, 1263 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). For the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l to gra

nt disc re tiona

ry re lie f, M e nde z would ha

ve to show that a qua lify ing re lat ive be ars the burde n of ha rdships tha

t a re “ e xc e ptiona l a

nd
e xtre m e ly unusua l.” 8 C .F.R
. § 212.7(d).
2M e nde z atte m pts to e v a de the forc e of § 1326(d) by c la im ing tha

t his
c ha lle nge is not a

c olla t e ra l atta c k on theunde rly ing de porta tion proc e e d i ng, but
rathe r a c ha lle nge re l ate d to thesta tutory e l e m e nts of a

§ 1326(a) offe nse
—

t hat the gove rnm e nt fa i le d to provethe re quire d e le m e nt tha t he ha d pre viously

be e n

“ de porte d.” M e nde z c la i m s he wa s not “ de porte d” for purpose s of 8 U.S.C . § 1326 be c a use the Fina l Adm inistra

t ive R e m ova l Orde r wa s issue d be fore he wa s se rve d with theForm

I-851 notic e wa s a

“ le ga l nullity .” No Ninth C irc uit or fe de ra l c a se la w sugge sts tha

t c ha ra c te riz ing a

proc e d ura l de fe c t a s a “ le ga l nullity” re nde rs § 1326(d) ina

pplic a ble
. M e nde z a lso c olla

t e ra lly atta c ks the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r by c la im ing that atte m pte d m urde r unde r C a lifornia

la w is not a n “ a ggrav ate d

fe lony ” for the purpose s of 8 U.S.C . § 1228(b). W e re je c t his the o ry

tha t P e oplev . C

ruz-Santos , 2015 W L 7282040 (C a l. C t. App. Nov. 18, 2015), re nde rs atte m

pte d m urde r unde r C a lifornia la w broa de r tha

n the ge ne ric form

of the offe nse . Give n tha t the
m arijua na grow ope rat ion in tha

t c a se wa s a

rm e d a nd pote ntia l ly

viole nt, M e nde z ha s fa ile d to show tha

t the re is “ som e thing spe c ia l” a bout C a lifornia 's a

pplic ation of the natura l-and-proba

b l e -c onse que nc e s doc trine to a tte m pte d m urde r that c rim ina liz e s c onduc t tha

t m o st jurisdic tions would not c onside r atte m pte d m urde r. Gonzale s v . Due nas-Alv are

z , 549 U.S. 183, 191 (2007); se eUnite d State s v . 3Albino-Loe , 747 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th C ir. 2014).

Nor doe s M e nde z ’ s c olla

te ra l atta c k suc c e e d on his c la im that the a ge nc y viola te d his due -proc e ss rights by pla c ing him

in e xpe dite d re m ova l proc e e dings, in whic h disc re tiona

ry re lie f unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h) wa s not a va ila b le
. M e n de z ’ s c ha lle nge unde r §1326(d) fa i ls. Eve n if we a ssum e , a rgue ndo , tha t M e n de z ’ s due -proc e ss rights were viola te d, he wa s not pre

judic e d by

the issua nc e of the re m ova l orde r be fore he wa s se rve d with theForm I-851 notic e . Unde r the pla i n la ngua ge of § 1182(h), his c onvic tion for a tte m pte d m urde r re nde re d him sta tutorily ine ligiblefor tha

t re l ie f. 2. M e nde z a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a p ply ing the sixte e n-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt, pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), on his vie w tha

t the gove rnm e nt ne e de d to provetha t his prior deporta

tion wa s va lid by c l e ar and c onvinc i ng e vide nc e in orde r for the e nha nc e m e nt to a

pply . B e c a

use we re je c t M e n de z ’ s c olla

te ra l atta c k on his underly ing re m ova l orde r, it c ould support his prose c ution under § 1326 a n d the gove rnm e nt thus ne e d e d to prove only tha t M e nde z wa s phy sic a lly

re m ove d from

the c ountry

in orde r to e nha

nc e his
a dvisory se nte n c ing ra

nge unde r § 2L1.2. Se eUnite d State s v . Rodrigue

z-Oc ampo , 664 F.3d 1275, 1278 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ). M o re ove r, be c a use M e nde z ’ s c olla te ra l atta c k ra ise d only

que stions of la

w, it is irre le va

nt to theana ly sis tha

t the
4gove rnm e nt c arrie d the burde n of proof a

t the se nte n c ing pha se . Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in a

pply ing thesixte e n-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt. AFFIRM E D.

5