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).

Th e H o n o r ab l e Ra l p h R. Er i c k s o n , Ch i e f D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f

o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orN orth D a kot a , F a r go, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

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. V I C T O R A L O N S O H E RN A N D E Z , e tc ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50203 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 6 2 8 - J FW 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . W a l t e r , 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 r12, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: F E RN A N D E Z and C A L L A H A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and E R IC K S O N , C hi ef D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED OC T 17 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSB ecau se th e p art i es are fam i l i ar w i th th e fact s an dp ro ced u ral h i st o ry, 1 w e do notr e s t a t e the m he r e e xc e pta s ne c e s s a ryt o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. 2 A p p e lla n t V ic to rA lo n s o H e rn a n d e z c la im s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss the charge thathe un l aw ful l y r ee nt er ed the U ni t ed S ta te s f o llo w in g h is d e p o rta tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt h e ldth a t H e rn a n d e z f a ile dto show thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed by defec t s i n the re m ov al pr oc e e di ngs a nd e ve n i f the yw e r e s o vi ol a t e d, H e rna nde z f a i l e d t o s how tha the s uf f e r e d a nypr e

j udi c e a s ar e s ul t . H e rna nde z the n c ondi t i ona l l ypl e d gui l tyt o a s in g le v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 p u r s u a n t to ap le aa g r e e m e n t th a t s p e c if ic a lly p r e s e rv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to d is m is s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d H e rn a n d e z to th irty - s ix m o n th s in p r is o n . O n ap p e a l, H e rna nde z c ont e nds tha t : ( 1) he di d notr e c e i ve a de qua t e not i c e r e ga r di ng the p o te n tia l e f

f e c ts o f h is a d v a n c e p a r o le ; ( 2 ) th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ( th e “I J ” ) s h o u ld have heard hi s r equestt o renew hi s app l i ca t i on for a dj ustm entof st atus and see k r e lie f u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) ( 2 ) ( k n o w n a s S e c tio n 2 1 2 ( h ) ) ; ( 3 ) th e I Js h o u ld ha ve a dvi s e d hi m t o s e e k ac ont i nua nc e of the r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs be c aus e he m ayhave l at erbecom e e l i gi bl e f or re l i ef ; and (4) he dem on stra t ed thathe suff er ed p r e j u d i c e a s ar e s u l to f

th e s e a l l e g e dd u e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n s . W e a f f i rm. 1 T he deni al of a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss an i l l egal re entrychar ge base d o n al l eged3

due pr oc e s s de f

e c t s i n the unde r l y i ng r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs i s r e vi e w e d de no vo . U ni te d State s v . Mur o-I

nc lan , 2 4 9 F .3 d1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . F ir s t, H e rn a n d e z ’s c la im th a t h e d idn o t r e c e iv e a d e q u a te n o tic e th a t h is a d v a n c e p a r o le c o u ldim p a c t h is ab ilityto s e e ka d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s a t a de port a t i on he a r i ng f

a i l s be c aus e the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( the

“ I N S ” ) c orr e c t l ya dvi s e d hi m tha the c oul d r e ne w hi s appl i c a t i on upon r e turn f r om h is a d v a n c e p a r o le a n d c o rr e c tlya d v is e dh im th a t h e w o u ldb e s u b je c t to r e m o v a l if the appl i c a t i on w a s de ni e d dur i ng hi s abs e nc e . H e rna nde z ha s nots how n tha the w a s e n title d to a n yf

u rth e rle g a l a d v ic e f

r o m th e I N S r e g a r d in g th e p o s s ib le r a m if ic a tio n s o f

a c c e p tin g a d v a n c e p a r o le . See B a rn ey v. R o g ers , 83 F . 3d 318, 32 0-21 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). S ec on d, the IJdi d n oterr i n con cl ud i ng thatl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear H e rna nde z ’ s r e ne w e d appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus orhe a rhi s c l a i m f or r e lie f u n d e rS e c tio n 2 1 2 ( h ) . See 8 U . S . C . § 1182( h) ( 2) . T he appl i c abl e r e gul a t i on atthatt i m e, form er8 C . F . R . § 2 45 . 2(a) (1), prov i ded i n rel evantpartthatthe IJ on l y had j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear are new ed adj ustm entappl i ca t i on du ri ng the re m ov al pr oc e e di ngs i f

the de ni e d appl i c a t i on w a s “ pr ope r l yf i l e d s ubs e que ntt o the ap p lic a n t’s e a r lie rin s p e c tio n a n d a d m is s io n to th e U n ite dS ta te s .” U n d e rth e p la in la n g u a g e o f

th e g o v e rn in g s ta tu te s , 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d8 U .S .C . §4

1182( h) ( 2) , the IJl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o eval uat e both H ernand ez ’ s r enew ed appl i ca t i on and h i s S ec t i on 21 2(h) cl ai m because he had ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es w i thouti ns pe c t i on a nd a dm i s s i on. See al so Ji an g v. G on zales , 425 F . 3d 649, 652- 53 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( fi nd i ng thatan IJm ayon l y c on si der an arr i vi ng al i en’ s r enew ed ap p lic a tio n d u r in g ar e m o v a l h e a r in g w h e n th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .2 ( a ) a r e m e t) . T hi r d, H e rnande z ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe I Jvi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s by f a ilin g to a d v is e h im th a t h e c o u lds e e kac o n tin u a n c e o f th e p r o c e e d in g s f

a ils b e c au s e “a n I J ’s d u tyis lim ite d to in f o rm in g a n a lie n o f

ar e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ility thatthe al i en i s e l i gi bl e f or re l i ef atthe t i m e of the heari ng . ” U ni ted States v. L op ez -V elasqu ez , 62 9 F . 3d 89 4, 89 5 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( e n banc ) . H e rna nde z w a s not el i gi bl e f or any r el i ef

fr om the IJatthe t i m e of the heari ng because of hi s c ri m i nal conv i ct i on s. A dd i t i on al l y, the IJw as no tre qu i re d t o ant i ci pat e pot ent i al changed c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd c ont i nue the he a r i ng s o tha tH e rna nde z c oul d s e e k S e c t i on 212( h) r e l i e f

f r om the A tt orne yG e ne r a l . I J s a r e notr e qui r e d “ t o s pe c ul a t e about the po ss i bi l i ty of ant i ci pat ed changes of ci rc um st ance s. ” U n ite d S ta tes v . Mo r ie lL una , 5 8 5 F .3 d1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . F in a lly , e v e n if

H e rn a n d e z c o u ldd e m o n s tr a te th a t h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts w ere v i o l at ed , h e w o u l d st i l l h av e t o d em o n strat e th ath e su ffered p rej u d i ce as a5

r e s u lt. H e rn a n d e z a tte m p ts to m e e t th is b u r d e n b yp o in tin g to h is c lo s e n e s s w ith h is f a m ily , w h o a r e U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n s , a n dth e e m o tio n a l a n df in a n c ia l h a r d s h ip the yw i l l s uf

f e ri f s e pa r a t e d f

r om hi m . H ow e ve r , the a l l e ge d ha r ds hi ps on H ernand ez ’ s f

am i l y do n otdem on stra t e an “ extre m e har dshi p” t o a U ni t ed S t at es c itiz e n s u f

f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h p r e

ju d ic e . Se e Pe r ezv . I

NS , 9 6 F .3 d3 9 0 , 3 9 2 ( 9 th C i r. 19 96 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f H e rn a n d e z ’s m o tio n to d is m is s is A FFI R M ED .