[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 3 
2

Jose Serrano Mojica, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals his 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 collateral challenge to the order of deportation, an 

alien must prove that he “exhausted any administrative remedies that may have 

been available to seek relief against the order”; “the deportation proceedings at 

which the order was issued improperly deprived [him] of an opportunity for 

judicial review”; and “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(d). The entry of an order of deportation is not fundamentally unfair unless 

the outcome of the removal proceeding would have been different 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 waiver 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 3 
3

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 Mojica had applied for relief from deportation, see id.

§ 1182(c), he would have been ineligible for that relief because he had not 

maintained a “lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive 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 his lawful residency 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 entitled to have his indictment dismissed.

We AFFIRM Mojica’s conviction.

Case: 13-11346 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 3 of 3