T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M ORGA N G ON ZALE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50562 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 03 43 1-W Q H -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m Q . H a y e s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r4, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , D . W . N E L S O N an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A pp el l antM organ G on za l ez (“ G on za l ez ”) appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss the i nd i ctm entfor a tt em pt ed re entryby a deport ed 

# FI LED SEP 15 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

al i en. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1 and , fi nd i ng no error, af fi rm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. W e r e vi e w s “ ade ni a l of am ot i on t o di s m i s s a n 8 U . S . C . § 1326 i ndi c tm e nt de novo w he n the m ot i on i s ba s e d upon a n a l l e ge d due pr oc e s s de f e c ti n the un derl yi ng depo rt at i on proceedi ng . ” U ni te d State s v . P al lar e s - G alan , 359 F . 3d 1088, 1094 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng U ni te d State s v . Mur o-I

nc lan , 249 F . 3d 1180, 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 01 )) . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s are re vi ew ed for c l ear e rr o r . U ni te d State s v . M

ar gue t- P i l lado , 56 0 F . 3d 10 78 , 10 81 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). In the cr i m i nal proceedi ng s a tthe di stri ctcourt , G on za l ez soug htt o att ac k h i s u n d e r l y i n g r e mo v a l o r d e rc o l l a t e r a l l yp u r s u an tt o 8 U. S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( d ) . To prevai l on a c ol l at er al att ac k o f hi s r em ov al order, G on za l ez m ustes t abl i sh (1) that he e xhaus t e d a nya va i l abl e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a va i l abl e t o s e e k r e l i e f f r om the re m ov al order, (2) thatthe depo rt at i on proceedi ng s a tw hi ch the order w as i ss ued i m prop er l y depri ved h i m of the op po rtun i ty f or j ud i ci al re vi ew , and (3) that th e e n tryo f

th e r e m o v a l o r d e rw a s “f u n d a m e n ta llyu n f

a ir .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( d ) . A r e m o v a l o r d e ris “f

u n d a m e n ta llyu n f

a ir ” if ( 1 ) ad e f e n d a n t’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts w e r e vi ol a t e d byde f

e c t s i n the unde r l y i ng de port a t i on pr oc e e di ngs , a nd ( 2) he s u f f e r e d p r e ju d ic e a s ar e s u lt o f

th o s e d e f

e c ts . U ni te d State s v . U

baldo- Fi gue r oa ,3

364 F . 3d 1042, 1048 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng U ni ted Stat es v. Zarat e-M art i nez , 1 3 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 1 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . G on za l ez ar gu ed thathe m etthe re qu i re m ent s of acol l at er al att ac k u nd er S ec t i on 13 26 by show i ng i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l atthe re m ov al pr oc e e di ngs . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yc onc l ude d tha tG onz a l e z c oul d not e s tab lis h in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. “L itig a n ts in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s h a v e n o S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l; th e irc o u n s e l c a n , h o w e v e r , b e s o in e f f e c tiv e a s to d e p r iv e th e m o f th e ir F i fth A m endm entri gh tt o d ue process of l aw . ” N ehadv. Mukasey , 535 F . 3d 962, 967 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( c i t i ng B lan co v. Mukasey , 5 1 8 F .3 d 7 1 4 , 7 2 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . I n thi s c ont e xt , i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a m ount s t o avi ol a t i on of due proces s i f “ ‘ the proceedi ng w as so fund am ent al l y unfai r thatthe al i en w as prevent ed fr om re as on abl y pre se nt i ng hi s c as e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 793 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ) . T he tw o e l e m e nt s of a n i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m he r e a r e ( 1) tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt a n d ( 2 ) th a t c o u n s e l’s d e f ic ie n c yc au s e d p r e

ju d ic e . I d. ( c i t i ng Moh am m ed , 400 F . 3d at79 3-94 ). G on za l ez ar gu es thathi s c ou nsel i n the i m m i grat i on proceedi ng s w as i ne f f e c t i ve be c aus e he di d nota dva nc e ac l a i m of de r i va t i ve c i t i z e ns hi p ba s e d upon4

8 U . S . C . § 1432, w hi c h w a s i n e f f e c tpr i ort o the C hi l d C i t i z e ns hi p A c tof 2000 a nd i s the st atut ory provi si on re l evanthere . S ec t i on 14 32 (a ) provi ded thata c hi l d b orn t o a l i e n pa r e nt s out s i de the U ni t e d S t a t e s aut om a t i c a l l ybe c a m e ac i t i z e n of the U n ite d S ta te s if

th e f o llo w in g c o n d itio n s w e r e m e t: ( 1) T he na tur a l i z a t i on of both pa r e nt s ; or ( 2) T he na tur a l i z a t i on of the s urvi vi ng pa r e nti f

one of the pa r e nt s i s de c e a s e d; or ( 3) T he na tur a l i z a t i on of the pa r e ntha vi ng l e ga l c us t ody of the c hi l d w he n the r e ha s be e n al e ga l s e par a t i on of the p a r e n ts o rth e n a tu r a liz a tio n o f th e m o th e rif

th e c h ild w a s b o rn o u t o f

w e d lo c ka n d th e p a te rn ityo f th e c h ild h a s n o t b e e n e s tab lis h e d b yle g itim a tio n ; a n d if ( 4 ) S u c h n a tu r a liz a tio n ta k e s p la c e w h ile s u c h c h ildis unm a rr i e d a nd unde rthe a ge of e i ght e e n; a nd ( 5 ) S u c h c h ildis r e s id in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s p u r s u a n t to l a w f ul a dm i s s i on f

orpe rm a ne ntr e s i de nc e a tthe t i m e of the natural i za t i on of the parentl as tnatural i ze d u nd er cl ause (1) of thi s s ub se ct i on , or the parentnatural i ze d un der c l ause (2) or ( 3) of thi s s ub se ct i on , or there af t er b e g in s to r e s id e p e rm a n e n tlyin th e U n ite d S ta te s w h ile u n d er th e ag e o f ei g h t een years. 8 U . S . C . § 1 43 2(a) . A cc ordi ng l y, t o o bt ai n ci t i ze nshi p u nd erthi s s t atut e, an i ndi vi dua l m us te s t abl i s h one of the f i r s tthr e e r e qui r e m e nt s . G onz a l e z f a i l s t o do s o.5

G o n z a le z c o n c e d e s th a t n e ith e rs u b s e c tio n ( a ) ( 1 ) n o r( a ) ( 2 ) is ap p lic ab le in thi s c a s e . O nl yG onz a l e z ’ s f a the ri s ana tur a l i z e d c i t i z e n, a nd hi s m othe ri s not dece as ed. G on za l ez urges us t o con si der hi s der i vat i ve ci t i ze nshi p u nd er s u b s e c tio n ( a ) ( 3 ) , a r g u in g th a t h e s h o u ld q u a lif yb e c au s e h is f

a th e rh a d s o le c us t odyof

hi m a tthe t i m e of

the na tur a l i z a t i on. T hi s a r gum e ntf a i l s . S ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 3) pr ovi de s tw o a ve nue s f orc i t i z e ns hi p. T he f

i r s ta ve nue r e qui r e s tha tthe natural i ze d p ar enthave l egal cust od y of achi l d w hen there has bee n a l egal se para t i on of the parent s. G on za l ez m ayno tcl ai m ci t i ze nshi p u nd erthi s app roac h b e c au s e h is p a r e n ts w e r e n o t m a rr ie d a n d th e r e f o r e c o u ld n o t le g a llys e p a r a te . B a r th e le myv . A s h c r o

ft , 329 F . 3d 1062, 1065 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ B a s e d on our re vi ew of the st atut e and ca se l aw , and u si ng the usual m eani ng s of the st atut ory t erm s, w e h o l d th atB arth el em y d o es n o ten j o y d eri v at i v e ci t i zen sh i p u n d er th e fi rst c lau s e o f [ s u b s e c tio n ( 3 ) ] b e c au s e h is n a tu r a l p a r e n ts n e v e rm a rr ie d a n d th u s c o u ld n o t leg a llys e pa r a t e . ” ) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he s e c ond a v e n u e a llo w s c itiz e n s h ip w h e r e o n lyth e m o th e rh a s n a tu r a liz e d , if th e c h ildis born outof

w e dl oc k a nd the pa t e rni tyof the c hi l d ha s notbe e n e s t abl i s he d by l egi t i m at i on . T hi s app roac h i s f orec l osed t o G on za l ez for tw o rea sons: hi s m other ne ve rna tur a l i z e d a nd he w a s l e gi t i m a t e d.T hi s C ou rtl i kew i se re j ec t ed the equal prot ec t i on ar gu m entthatthe l aw 1 i m p erm i ssi b l y i m p o ses d i fferen t“ l eg i t i m at i o n ” st an d ard s o n u n m arri ed fath ers, f in d in g s u c h a n a r g u m e n t to b e f o r e c lo s e d b yth e S u p r e m e C o u rt’s d e c is io n in Ng u y e n v . I NS , 53 3 U . S . 53 , 62 –6 8 (20 01 ) ( fi nd i ng thatthe go vernm enthas an i m po rt anti nt er es ti n requi ri ng the fa ther t o p rove pat erni ty bef ore c i t i ze nshi p m ay att ac h t o h i s c hi l d). 6 G on za l ez ar gu es , neverthel es s, thatsubsec t i on (a )( 3) i s uncon st i tut i on al b e c au s e it a llo w s o n lyu n w e d m o th e r s , n o t u n w e d f a th e r s , to p a s s o n c itiz e n s h ip to the i rc hi l dr e n. U nde rourde c i s i on i n B a r th e le my , G on za l ez has no equ al prot ec t i on cl ai m . T he B a r th e le myc ourtf ound s pe c i f

i c a l l ytha ts ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 3) d o e s n o t d is c r im in a te o n th e b a s is o f s e x w h e r e ac h ildis le g itim a te d , b e c au s e in thatca se , nei ther the chi l d’ s f ather norm o th e rc o u ld p a s s c itiz e n s h ip o n to ac h ild u n le s s b o th p a r e n ts n a tu r a liz e d , o n e p a r e n t h a d d ie d , o rth e p a r e n ts le g a lly s e pa r a t e d a nd the na tur a l i z e d pa r e ntr e t a i ne d l e ga l c us t ody of the c hi l d. 329 F . 3d a t1067- 68. I n thi s c a s e , i ti s undi s put e d tha tG onz a l e z ha s be e n l e gi t i m a t e d a nd thu s he c anno tsust ai n a gend er -bas ed equal prot ec t i on cl ai m . G on za l ez prov i des 1 us w i th n o com pel l i ng re as on t o rec on si der B a r th e le my . T hu s, even i f G on za l ez ’ s c ou nsel had argued for deri vat i ve ci t i ze nshi p u nd er S e c tio n 1 4 3 2 ( a ) , s u c h ac la im w o u ld h a v e f a ile d b e c au s e G o n z a le z is c a te g o r ic a lly i ne l i gi bl e f

orc i t i z e ns hi p unde rthe s t a tut e . G onz a l e z the r e f or e f a i l s t o pr ove the se cond pron g o f an i neff ec t i ve as si st ance cl ai m , w hi ch re qu i re s ashow i ng that7

c ouns e l ’ s de f

i c i e nc yc aus e d pr e

j udi c e . A c c or di ngl y , G onz a l e z f a i l s t o e s t abl i s h the

“ f unda m e nt a l l yunf

a i r ” pr ong of

aS e c t i on 1326 c ol l a t e r a l a tt a c k be c aus e he c a nnot s h o w th a t h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts w e r e v io la te d , o rth a t h e s u f f e r e d a n yp r e

ju d ic e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd e n ie d G o n z a le z ’s m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. A F F I R M E D .