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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R UFINO PER

ALTA-SANC HEZ, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50393

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-03370-LAB -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R UFINO PER

ALTA-SANC HEZ, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50394

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-01308-LAB -1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 4, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED AUG 22 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : PREGER SON, B YB EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . R ufino Pe ra lta -Sanc he z wa s c onvic t e d of ille ga l e ntry in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1325 a

nd ille ga l re e n t

ry in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Thepre dic ate for his ille ga l re e ntry

c o unt wa s his 8 U.S.C . § 1225 e xpe dite d re m ova l in 2012. Pe ra lta -Sanc he z argue s tha t his e xpe dite d re m ova l proc e e d ings (“ the proc e e dings” )
we re funda

m e nta lly unfa ir, a nd thus c annot se rve a s the ba s is of the ille ga l re e ntry c ount, be c a

use he wa s ne i the r a llowe d to hire c o unse l nor a dvise d of his right to
a pply for withdra

wa l of his a

pplic ation for a dm ission. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm . B e c a

u se the re voc at ion of his supervise d re le a se c ondition wa s pre m ise d on the § 1326 c onvic tion, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s re voc ation of this c ondition a s we ll. To suc c e e d

in this a ppe a l of the § 1326 c rim ina l c onvic tion, Pe ra l ta -Sanc h e z m ust de m onstra

t e tha t the 2012 re m ova l orde r wa s “ funda m e nta l ly unfa ir.” 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d). To do this, he m ust show tha

t the proc e e dings viola

t e d his due proc e s s rights a

nd tha t he suffe re d pre

judic e a s a

re s ult of tha

t viola tion. Unite d State s v . Ray a-Vac a , 771 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th C ir. 2014). W e will a ssum e for purpose s of this c a s e only tha t Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ha d a

due proc e ss right to re ta in
c ounse l at his own e xpe nse an d to be a dvise d by the gove rnm e nt of the right to
se e k withdra wa l of a dm ission under 8 U.S.C . § 1225(a )(4) during theproc e e dings,
2and thus tha

t his due proc e ss rights we re viola te d, le a v ing the que s tion whe the r Pe ra lta -Sanc he z prove d tha t he wa s pre

judic e d by

the se viola

tions.

“ An a lie n se e king to prove pre judic e ne e d not e sta

b l ish tha t he de finite ly would ha ve re c e i v e d im

m i gration re lie f, but only

tha t he ha d ‘ pla

usible grounds’ for re c e iving suc h re lie f.” Unite d State s v . Barajas-Alv

arado , 655 F.3d 1077, 1089 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita

tion omi tte d). “ [E] sta

blishing ‘ pla

usibility ’ re quire s m ore tha n e sta blishing a m e re ‘ possibility .’ ” Id. Whe n the form of re lie f c l a im e d is disc re tiona

ry , “ the a lie n m

ust ‘ m ake a “ pla

usible ” showing tha

t the fa c ts pre se nte d would c a use the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l to e xe rc ise disc re tion in his fa vor.’ ” Id. (c ita

tion
om i tte d). “ [I] n light of the fa c t ors re le va

nt to theform

of re lie f be ing sought, a

nd ba se d on the ‘ unique c irc um sta nc e s of [the a lie n’ s] own c a se ,’ it [m ust be ] pla u sible (not m e re ly

c onc e iva ble )” tha t re lie f would ha

ve be e n gra

nte d. Id. (c ita tion omitte d) (se c ond a lte ra tion in origina l). Pe ra lta -Sanc he z fa ils to c arry this burde n a s to both viola

tions. Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s c l a im

of pre judic e from

fa iling to ha

ve the right to hire
c ounse l fa lte rs at

its first hurdle . Pe ra lta -Sanc he z points to nothing in the re c ord to indic ate tha

t he a c tua lly

would ha ve hire d a n attorne y ha d he ha d the right to do so. Se e id. (noting tha

t it “ a ssum [e d] tha

t [the a lie n] c ould e sta

b lish tha t he would

3have ” e xe rc ise d , for pre judic e -ana ly sis purpose s, the due proc e ss right hec la im e d to ha ve ). Inde e d, the fa c ts in there c ord le a d to the oppositec onc lusion. Pe ra lta
Sanc he z wa s ofte n a

rre ste d a nd de porte d, a

nd he would ille ga lly

re e nte r the Unite d Stat e s shortly

the re a fte r. What is m ore , though, a re the c irc um sta

nc e s te m pora lly surrounding the

proc e e dings. Thea

ppre he nsion tha

t le d to the proc e e d i ngs oc c urre d thre e day

s a fte r he ha d la st be e n re m ove d. He wa s the n re m ove d a ga in
and a ppre he nde d in the Unite d State s f our day s late r. Afte r be ing re m ove d a ga in, Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ille ga lly

re e nte re d thev e ry

ne x t day . Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s c onte ntion that he would ha

ve hire d a la wy e r, prolonge d his de te n t ion, a nd riske d a

nothe r prison se nte nc e ra the r tha n just ta ke the e xpe dite d re m ova l tha t a llowe d him to try
a ga in the ne xt da

y is sim ply im pla usible
. Eve n if we a s sum e tha

t Pe ra lta -San c he z would ha v e hire d a n attorne y , his thre e c la im s of pre

judic e ba s e d on wha

t his a ttorne y m ight ha ve done fa il. 1. Pe ra lta -Sanc he z first c la im s tha t an attorne y c ould ha ve c onvinc e d the B orde r Pa trol a ge nt c onduc ting a n inte rvie w a im e d at e s ta

blishe d ba s e line fa c ts to e xe rc ise he r disc re tion to tra nsform the e xpe d ite d

re m ova l proc e e d ings into afullfle dge d he aring be fore an im m igration judge , who in turn c ould ha ve e xe rc ise d his

4disc re tion e ithe r to re sc ind the 1999 re m ova l or to offe r nuncpro tunc re lie f. Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ha s not shown e ithe r of the se two step s to be pla usible
. Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s att orne y would first ne e d to c onvinc e the B orde r Pa trol offic e r inte rvie wing Pe ra lta -San c he z in § 1225 re m ova l proc e e dings to inte rpre t the phra se , “ the offic e r sha ll orde r the a lie n re m o ve d from the Unite d State s without furthe r he aring or re vie w,” 8 U.S.C . § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), to a l low the offic e r to e xe rc ise he r disc re tion to orde r the a lie n into a full he aring be fore an im m igration judge
. Se e also 8 C .F.R
. § 235.3(b)(2)(ii). Nothing indic ate s tha t offic e rs do tha

t, or tha t the ir proc e d

ure s a uthoriz e the m

to do so. Even if the offic e r we re inc line d to think she

ha d this a uthority , Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ha s not de m onstra te d tha t she would pla usibly e xe rc ise it. Pe ra lta -San c h e z ’ s lita ny of re e ntrie s, his substa

ntia l
c rim ina l re c ord— inc luding a rre sts for a

rson a nd fake ide ntific at ion, se ve ra l fe lony
or m isde m e anor DUIs, a

nd a fe lony c onvic tion for a

posse s sion of
c oc a ine

— signific antly

c uts a ga inst finding a

n e xe rc ise of disc re tion pla u sible
. Eve n if a n attorne y c ould ha ve gotte n Pe ra lta -Sanc he z be fore an im m igration judge , Pe ra lta -San c he z ha s not “ m a [d] e a ‘ pla usible ’ showing tha

t the fa c t s pre s e nte d [by

his c irc um sta

nc e s] would c a

use the [im

m igration judge ] to e xe rc ise disc re t i on in his fa vor.” Barajas-Alv

arado , 655 F.3d a

t 1089 (c ita

tion
om i tte d). Although Pe ra lta -San c he z argue s tha t he wa s ina dm issibleonly be c a use 5he e n te re d

the Unite d State s without valid e ntry doc um e nts, se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(7), and tha

t nuncpro tunc

re l ie f c ould c ure this de fe c t, Pe ra l ta -Sanc he z wa s a lso ina d

m issiblebe c a

use he ha d be e n c onvic te d of the posse ssion of a
c ontrolle d substa

nc e , c oc a ine
. 1 Se e id. § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II); C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11350; Unite d State s v . Garc ia-Gonzale

z , 791 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ [The de fe nda

nt’ s] C a lifornia

sta te c onvic t ion for posse ssion of c oc a ine
re nde re d him

ina dm issible. . . .” ), c e rt. de nie d , 136 S. C t. 862 (2016). The Attorne y Ge ne ra l ha s no disc re tion to waive this ba r, and Pe ra lta -Sanc h e z fa ils to
e xpla in how nuncpro tunc re lie f would do so e ithe r. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h) (listing ina

pplic a ble e xe m ptions). In sum , Pe ra l ta -Sanc he z ha s not shown tha t e ithe r a c tor would ha

ve pla u sibly e x e rc ise d disc re tion on Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s be ha lf ha d Pe ra lta -Sanc he z be e n a l lowe d to hire an attorne y . 2. Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ne xt c la im s tha t a n attorne y c ould ha ve he lpe d him a pply for a d justm e nt of sta

tus. B ut this is not true
. Pe ra lta -Sanc he z c ould not ha ve sought a djustm e nt of sta

tus be c a use he wa s ina dm issiblefor the re a sons disc usse d

1 Pe ra lta -San c he z wa s a lso ina dm issiblebe c a use he wa s “ c o nvic te d of 2 or m ore offe nse s . . . for whic h the a ggre gate se nte nc e s to c onfine m e nt we re 5 y e ars or m ore .” 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(B ). While the Attorne y Ge ne ra l ha s the disc re tion to wai ve this ba r to a dm issibility , Pe ra lta -Sanc he z fa ils to e xpla in why the A ttorne y

Ge ne ra l pla

usibly would do so. Se e id. § 1182(h)(1)(A)(iii).

6a

bove
. Se e Garc i a-Gonzale z , 791 F.3d a

t 1179 (“ [The de fe nda

nt’ s] C a lifornia sta te c o nvic tion for posse ssion of c oc a ine . . . re nde re d his fa the r’ s pe tition for
a djustm e nt of sta

tus irre l e va

nt.” ). 3. Fina lly , Pe ra lta -Sanc he z c l a im s tha t a n attorne y c ould ha ve he lpe d him
a pply for withdra

wa l re l ie f. The C ustom s a nd B orde r Pa trol ha s a

n Inspe c tor’ s Fie l d M anua l tha

t la y s out six fa c tors tha

t should beuse d, non-e xc lusive ly , to guide the granting of theAttorne y Ge n e ra l’ s withdra

w a l re lie f. Se e BarajasAlv a rado , 655 F.3d a

t 1090. The se fa c tors a

re : (1) the se riousne ss of the im m igration viola

tion; (2) pre vious findings of ina dm issibility

a g a inst thea lie n; (3) inte nt on the pa

rt of the a lie n

to viola te the la w; (4) the a

bility to e a s ily ove rc om e the g round of ina dm issibility ; (5) a ge or poor he a lth of thea l ie n; a nd (6) othe r hum anita rian or public inte re st c onside ra tions. C U S T O M S & B O R D E R P A T R O L , I N S P E C T O R ’ S F I E LD M A N U A L § 17.2 (2006). Given Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s long history of fla unting our la

w s, both im

m igration a

nd othe rwise , a

nd the de arth of e quitie s c utting in his fa

vor, he ha s not e sta

blishe d tha

t withdra wa l re l ie f wa s pla

usible
. As to thefirst fa c tor, Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s c onsiste nt ina b i lity to a bide by our im m igration la

ws, de s pite se ve ra l pe riods of im prisonm e nt a s a

re sult of the se viola tions, is serious a

nd de m onstra

te s a c l e ar inte n t to viola

te the la w. Se e Ray aVac a , 771 F.3d a

t 1208 (finding tha

t a “ history of ille ga l re e n t

rie s ” m a de the
7de fe nda

n t’ s m o s t re c e nt viola

tion “ re lative ly

se rious” ); Barajas-Alv

arado , 655 F.3d at 1090 (finding tha

t the fa c t the de fe nda

nt wa s subje c t to two pre vious
e xpe dite d re m o v a l orde rs re nde re d the m ost re c e nt viola t ion “ se rious” ). W e find a s we ll tha

t the se c ond a

nd fourth fa c t ors, re late d to ina dm issibility , sim ila rly we igh a ga inst Pe ra lta -Sanc he z . He ha d at le a st four findings of ina d m issibility , the fina lity

of whic h a

re not a ffe c te d by

any subse que nt c ha

nge s in the l aw. Se e Ray a-Vac a , 771 F.3d a t 1208; Unite d State

s v . Aguile ra-Rios , 769 F.3d 626, 633 n.3 (9th C ir. 2014). M ore ove r, the fa c t tha t, a s disc usse d a

bove , Pe ra lta -Sanc he z c ould not ha v e sought a djustm e n t of sta tus, a n d wa s the re fore unlike ly to ove rc om e the pre vious findings of ina dm issibility , c uts a g a inst him
. Se e Garc ia-Gonzale

z , 791 F.3d a

t 1179. As to thefifth fa c tor, a ge and poor he a lth, Pe ra l ta -Sanc h e z wa s fifty -thre e y e ars old a

t the tim e of his e xpe dite d re m ova l in 2012. De spite now c la im ing tha t he “ s uffe re d m any

y e ars of ba c k-bre aking la bor in the fie lds,” in 2012, Pe ra lta
Sanc he z wa s we l l e nough to wa lk through the de se rt, hide from B orde r Pa trol, a nd
sa y tha t he wa s in good he a l th a

nd pla nning to tra

v e l to Los Ange le s to work. This fa c t or we ighs a ga inst him a s we ll. Fina lly , we a ddre ss fa c tor six, hum anita rian c o nside ra tions. On this point, Pe ra lta -Sanc he z princ ipa lly e m pha siz e s his re side n c e in the Unite d State s prior to

8his 1999 re m ova l a nd the fa c t

tha t he ha s thre e U.S. c itiz e n c hildre n. Howe ve r, in Barajas-Alv

arado , we c onc lude d tha

t a n a lie n’ s “ t ie s to theUnite d State s” are “ not liste d a s c onside ra tions in the Inspe c tor’ s Fie ld M a

n ua l a nd the re fore c arry

little
we ight.” 655 F.3d a

t 1091. From

the re c ord, Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s fam i ly tie s a re a lso
som e what unc l e ar. Eve n a ssum ing tha t this we ighe d

in Pe ra lta -Sanc h e z ’ s favor, it is insuffic ie nt. For the sa m e re a sons, Pe ra lta -Sanc he z ’ s c la im ba se d on a fa ilure to be notifie d of the possibility of withdra

wa l re lie f—

with or without the

a ssista nc e of
an attorne y

— fa ils for la c k of pre

judic e . * * * Pe ra lta -Sanc he z fa ile d to de m onstra t e pre judic e for e i the r a lle ge d due proc e s s viola

tion during his 2012 e

xpe dite d re m ova l proc e e dings, fore c losing a finding tha

t the proc e e d i ngs we re funda m e nta lly unfa ir. B e c a

use his c ha lle n ge to his 2012 e xpe dite d re m ova l orde r fa ils, theorde r m ay se rve a s a

pre dic at e for his 2014 ille ga l re e ntry

c onvic tion unde r § 1326, whic h in turn supports the re voc ation of his supe rvise d

re le a se . AFFIRM E D.

9Unite d

State s v . Pe ralta-Sanc he

z , Nos. 14-50393, 14-50394 Pre ge rson, J., c onc urring: I c onc ur in the re sult only
. 

# F IL ED AUG 22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS