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. DANIEL ESTUAR

DO R IVER

A, AKA R a fa e l Ga rc ia C a stillo, AKA Da

nie l E. R ive ra , AKA Da

nie l Esta urdo C a stillo R ive ra , AKA Da

nie l Esturdor R

ive ra , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50115

D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00347-JFW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 13, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, FER NANDEZ, a

nd WARDLAW , C irc u it Judge s. Danie l R ive ra

a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for ille ga l re e ntry unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1326(a ), (b)(2). He argue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in fa iling to dism iss the 

# F IL ED JUL 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.indic tm e nt unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d) be c a use he wa s de nie d due proc e ss in the unde rly ing re m ova l proc e e dings. W e a gre e , a nd re ve rse . An ille ga l re e ntry

indic tm e nt m

ust be dism isse d if (a

m ong othe r
re quire m e nts not dispute d in this c a se ) “ the e ntry of the orde r wa s funda

m e n ta lly unfa ir.” 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d)(3). A re m ova l orde r is funda m e nta lly unfa ir if “ (1) a de fe nda n t’ s due proc e ss rights we re viola t e d by de fe c ts in [his] unde rly ing de porta tion proc e e ding, a

nd (2) [he ] suffe re d pre

judic e a s a

re sult of the de fe c ts.” Unite d State s v . C isne ros-Rodrigue

z , 813 F.3d 748, 756 (9th C ir. 2015). The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t R ive ra wa s pla

usibly e l igible for withholding of rem ova l a nd C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT) re lie f a t the tim e of his re m o va l proc e e ding. The only que stions be fore us a re whe the r R ive ra ’ s due proc e ss rights we re viola te d during there m ova l proc e e ding a nd whe the r any

suc h viola

tion c a use d him to not pursue withholding or CAT re lie f. Due proc e ss re quire s tha

t a n Im m igration Judge(IJ) “ inform an a lie n of his or he r a bility to a pply for re lie f from re m ova l .” Unite d State s v . Ubaldo-Figueroa , 364 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th C ir. 2004). “ [F] a ilure to so inform the a lie n . . . is a de nia l of due proc e ss tha

t inva lida te s the unde rly ing de porta tion proc e e ding.” Id. (inte rna l quota

t ions omitte d). M e re ly

a sking whe the r an

a lie n wa nts to a pply for
c e rta in re lie f is not suffic ie nt. In a ddition, “the IJ m ust a de quate ly

e xpla in the
2he aring proc e dure s to thea lie n.” Agy e man v . I.N .S. , 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th C ir. 2002). The IJ’ s obliga

tions a re he ighte n e d whe n

a nonc itiz e n a

ppe ars pro se , be c a use suc h individuals “ ofte n la c k the le ga l knowle d g e to na viga te the ir wa

y
suc c e ssfully

through them ora s s of im m igration la

w , a nd be c a u se the ir fa i lure to do
so suc c e ssfully

m i ght re sult in the ir e xpulsion from this c ountry .” Id. R ive ra wa s de ta ine d during his re m ova l proc e e d ings a nd a ppe are d without the a ssista

nc e of c ounse l . At the tim e of the re m ova l proc e e ding, Rive ra ha d a n
a ffirm ative a sy lum

pe tition tha

t ha d be e n pe nding, without gove

rnm e nt a c tion, for
m ore tha n five y e ars. He inform e d the IJ a bout his prior a

pplic ation a

n d a sse rte d that it c onta ine d the fa c ts ne c e ssa ry to e sta blish his e ligibility

for re lie f. The IJ ne ve r a s ke d R ive ra if he wa nte d to pursue his e xisting a pplic ation for
re lie f, nor did shea sk if Rive ra wa nte d to withdra

w tha t a p plic ation. Inste a d , the IJ inte rrupte d R ive ra ’ s e xpla nation a nd a ske d if he wa

nte d to file anothe r

a pplic ation. Whe n R ive ra

de c l ine d to do so, the

IJ proc e e d e d to find R

ive ra re m ova

b le . Eve n whe n R ive ra

subse que ntly

a ske d, “ [S] o wha

t c an I do? ” and indic ate d he wa nte d to
a ppe a l “ be c a

use I got m

y fam ily right he re ,” the IJ ne ve r inform e d R ive ra tha t
a djudic ating his e xisting a pplic ation wa s a

n option. Nor did the

IJ e xpla in to R ive ra tha t a n a pplic ation for a sy lum

during a re m ova l proc e e ding would be proc e s se d signific antly

fa ste r tha n a n a ffirm ative a

pplic ation.
3R ive ra ’ s a c tions a t the re m ova l he aring c le arly indic ate d his c onfusion. He de m onstra

te d a de s ire to sta

y in the Unite d State s— first by a s king for a

lowe r bond, the n by

a sking wha

t he c ould do to re m a in, a n d fina lly by indic ating a

de sire to a p pe a l. And y e t he de c l ine d to a pply for the only

form of re lie f that

would
e na ble him to re m a in. The se c onfusing a c tions put the IJ on notic e tha

t R ive ra wa s lost in “the m ora ss of im

m igrat ion la

w.” Agy e man , 296 F.3d a t 877. The IJ wa s
a lso on notic e tha

t R ive ra ha d a n a lre a d y -pe n ding a sy l um

a pplic ation a

n d tha t his
re a s ons for not a

pply ing for re lie f we re ba s e d on c o nc e rns a bout de la y . Ne ve rthe le ss, the IJ did not a djudic ate R ive ra ’ s pe nding a p plic ation or e xpla in tha

t
a ne wa pplic ation would be

proc e sse d quic kly . The se fa ilure s viola te d R ive ra ’ s due proc e ss rights, pa

rtic ula rly in light of his pro se

sta t us. In the c onte xt of this c a se , we c onc lude tha t the IJ’ s fa ilure to m ore fully
e xpla in the proc e e dings c a use d R ive ra

not to se e k the re lie f for whic h he wa s pla u sibly e l igible . R ive ra ’ s c onc e rn— re p e ate d se v e ra l tim e s
—

wa s the inde finite furthe r de la

y he be lie ve d would beoc c a sione d by filing a ne w a

pplic ation. Tha

t be lie f wa s re a sona

ble (ba se d on the inte rm ina ble de la y he ha d a lre a d

y e xpe rie nc e d)
and a signific ant c onc e rn (give n the gove rnm e nt’ s de c ision to de ta in him during the p roc e e dings). If theIJ ha d e ithe r a djudic ate d R ive ra ’ s pe nding a pplic ation or

4e xpla ine d tha t a ne w a pplic at ion would be proc e s se d quic kly , R ive ra would undoubte dly have sought a nd pla usibly obta ine d re lie f from

re m ova l. R ive ra ha s de m onstra

te d tha t his unde rly ing re m ova l proc e e ding wa s funda m e nta lly unfa i r, and tha

t the unfa irne ss c a

u se d him not to se e k re lie f from
re m ova l for whic h the gove rnm e nt c onc e d e s he wa s pla usibly e ligible
. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to dism iss theindic tm e nt. The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is re ve rse d and the c a se re m ande d

with instruc tions to dism

iss theindic tm e nt. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

5Un i ted St at es v . Ri v era, No
. 1 6-5 0 1 1 5

FERNANDEZ, Ci rcu i t J u d g e, d i s s en t i n g Th e Imm i g rat i o n J u d g e (IJ ) was req u i red t o m ak e Ri v era “ ‘ aware t h at h e [h ad ] a ri g h tt o s eekrel i ef,’ ” an dt o p ro v i d e h i m “ wi t h t h e o p p o rt u n i ty

t o ap p l y fo r rel i ef.” Un i t ed

St at es v. Mel en d

ez -Ca s tr o , 6 7 1 F.3 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 4 (9 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 2 ) (p er
cu ri am ). Here t he IJ d i dju stt h at . Ho wev er, Ri v era as s ert edt h at h e d idn o twi s h t o ap p ly , b u twan ted t o b e “ d ep o rt edn o w.” He d i dn o ts ay t h at h e was co n cern ed ab o uti n d efi n i t e fu rt h er d el ay , an d h e s t i l l h as n o tt es t i fi edo r o t h erwi s e s wo rn t h at h e was . In m

y v i ew, h i s h eari n g d i dn o t v i o l at e du e p ro ces s . Th u s , I res p ect fu l l y d i s s en t . 

# F IL ED JUL 27 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S

. COURT OF A P P E A LS