[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 11346 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:12

- cr
- 14088

- JEM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JOSE SERRANO MOJICA,
Defendant

- Appellant.

___ _____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (June 16, 2014) Before WILSON , PRYOR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-11346 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 1 of 32 Jose Serrano Mojica , a native and citizen of Mexico, appeal s h is conviction for illegal reentry after deportation

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) , (b)(2). Mojica argues that his indictment should have been dismissed based on an alleged impropriety in the underlying order of deportation . We affirm.
We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the invalidity of the underlying removal order. United States v. Zelaya , 293 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). To prevail in a c ollateral challenge to the order of deportation, an alien must prove that he “ exhau sted any administrative remedies that may have
been available to seek relief against the order ” ; “ the deportation proceeding s at which the order was issued improperly deprived [him] of an opportunity for judicial review ” ; and “ the entry of the order was fu ndamentally unfair. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). T he entry of an order of deportation is not fundamentally unfair unless the outcome of the removal proceeding would have been differe nt but for the alleged error. Zelaya , 293 F.3d at 1298.
The district court did not err by denying Mojica’s motion to dismiss. Mojica argues that the entry of his order of deportation in 1996 was fundamentally unfair
because he was misadvised by his attorney and the immigration judge that he could
not obtain a wai ver from the order of deportation , but Mojica was ineligible for a
waiver when he was deported

. Although the Attorney General in 1996 exercised some discretion to waive a deportation order , he could not grant a waiver if an

Case: 13-11346 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 2 of 33 alien had been “convicted of . . . murder . . . or an attempt or conspiracy to commit
murder

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (1996)

. The Attorney General could not have granted Mojica a waiver because, in 1995, he was convicted of attempted first degree murder. Moreover, if Moj ica ha d applied for relief from deportation, s ee id. § 1182(c), he would have been ineligible for that relief because he had not
maintaine d a “lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven con se cutive years” in the United States. Mojica became a lawful resident of the United States on December 3, 1990, when the Immigration and Nationalization Service granted his application for temporary residency as an agricultural worker, and h is lawful reside ncy ended less than six years later on September 27, 1996, when an immigration judge entered an order deporting Mojica and he waived his right to appeal that order.
Because Mojica failed to prove that his deportation was fundamentally unfair, he

was not e ntitled to have his indictment dismissed

. We AFFIRM Mojica’s conviction. Case: 13-11346 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 3 of 3