# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 16 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Pet ra Sa nt os -Pu li do

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 29 , 20 16 Fi le d: Marc h 8 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Pet ra S a n t os -Pu li do
, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Mex ic o, il le ga ll y en te red th e Uni te d St at es on May 21
, 20 10
, h o p i n g t o f in d wor k. A few da y s la te r, sh e

en co un te red U.S. Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y (DHS) bo rd er-p at ro l ag en ts in
Tuc so n, Ariz on a. As req ui red by 8 U.S.C. § 12 25 (a)( 1)
, th e bo rd e r

- p a tro l ag en ts
tre at ed San to s- Pu li do as “ an ap pl ic an t fo r ad m is si on .” Rec or ds of th e en co u n te r in di cat e a bo rd er-p at ro l ag en t ad vi se d San to s- Pu li do in Sp an is h of he r rig ht s an d to okhe r swo rn st at em en t reg ard in g he r en try in to th e Uni te d St at es

. San to s- Pu li do

rep or te d sh e so ug ht work an d a be tt er l ife in th e Uni te d St at es bu t ha d no reas on to fear ret ur ni ng to Mex ic o. Bas ed on San to s- Pu li do ’s swo rn st at em en t an d he r la ck of

va li d en try do cu m en ts , DHS de te rm in ed San to s- Pu l i d o was in ad m is si bl e un de r 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 7) (A)(i )(I) an d rem ov ed he r fro m th e Uni te d St at es

. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 25 (b )(1 )(A)(i )-(B )(i ii ) (req ui rin g ex pe di te d rem ov al ab se nt a req ue st fo r as y lu m

or a “ cred ib le fear of pe rs ecu ti on ”). Befo re San to s- Pu li do ret ur ne d to Mex ic o, DHS ad vi se d h er o f th e p en al ti es for il le ga ll y reen te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s.

San to s- Pu li do no ne th el es s il le ga ll y reen te red th e Uni te d St at es th ree ti m es in
Ju ne 20 10

. Each ti m e, DHS rei ns ta te d th e or ig in al rem ov a l o r d e r an d rem ov ed
San to s- Pu li do , c om m

un ic at in g to h e r i n S p an is h th e ba si s fo r rem ov ab il it y an d he r

r i g ht to co nt es t DHS’s d et erm in at io n. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (a)( 5)

. On two of th os e

oc cas io ns , San to s- Pu li do pl ed gu il ty in th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Tex as to en te rin g th e Uni te d St at es un la wfu ll y in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 25 (a)( 1)
, rece iv in g a se nt en ce of ti m e se rv ed for th e fi rs t co nv ic ti on an d t en da y s fo r th e se co nd

.

Fo ur y ears la te r, San to s- Pu li do was a pa ss en ge r in a car in vo lv ed in an acci de nt i n C e d ar Rap id s, Io wa. Im m ig rat io n of

fic ers la te r arre st ed San to s- Pu li do fo r

reen te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t au th or iz at io n.

On Au g u s t 13
, 20 14
, a gr an d jury ch arg ed San to s- Pu li do wit h on e co un t of be in g fo un d in th e Uni te d St at es aft er rem ov al in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a). On Sep te m be r 12
, 20 1 4
, S a nt os -Pu li do m ov ed to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t, arg ui ng th e

un de rlyin g re m ov al ord er v io la te d h er Fi fth Am en dm en t ri gh t t o d ue pro ces s u nd er th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on be cau se DHS fai le d “ to ex pl ai n in Sp an is h al l of [San to sPu li do ’s] rig ht s th at sh e wou ld be gi vi ng up in a [s ic ] ex pe di te d rem ov al or de r” an d fai le d “ to all ow h er t o wi th dr aw he r ap pl ic at io n fo r ad m is si on .”

-2

-The di st ric t co ur t in it ia ll y sc he du le d a m ot io n he ari ng bu t, up on rev ie win g th e 1
br ie fs , d et erm in ed a he ari ng was un ne ces sa ry

. On Sep te m be r 29 , 2 01 4, th e di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed San to s- Pu li do ’s m ot i o n b e c au se sh e co ul d no t “ sh ow th at en try o f th e

rem ov a l or de r was fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r.” See 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (d )(3 ) (p erm it ti ng

co ll at eral at ta ck s on a rem ov al or de r us ed to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on un de r 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) if th e al ie n de m on st rat es “ th e en try of th e or de r was fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r”). Cl os el y rev ie win g th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd
, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc l u d e d DHS ha d

“ ad eq ua te ly exp la in ed in Sp an is h t he rig ht s [S an to s- Pu li do ] was gi vi ng up .”

W it h res pe ct to San to s- Pu li do ’s cl ai m ed rig ht to wit hd raw he r ap pl ic at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t po in te d ou t San to s

- P u l i d o “ pr ov id e[d ] no au th or it y in su pp or t of he r
arg um en t th at on e su bjec t to ex pe di te d rem ov al ha s a rig ht to wit hd raw an ap pl ic at io n fo r a d mi s s i on .” Not in g 8 C.F.R. § 12 35 .4 in st ead (1 ) gi ve s th e Att or ne y Gen eral di sc ret io n to “ pe rm it a ny al ie n ap pl ic an t fo r ad m is si on to wit hd raw hi s or he r
ap pl ic at io n fo r ad m is si on in li eu of

. . . ex pe di te d rem ov al ,” an d (2 ) cl ari fie s “ no th in g in th is sec ti on sh al l b e co ns tru ed as t o g iv e an ali en th e ri gh t t o wi th dr aw hi s or her

ap pl ic at io n fo r ad m is si on ,” th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed San to s- Pu li do ha d no rig ht

to wit hd raw he r ap pl ic at io n an d DHS ha d no du ty to ad vi se h e r of th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s di sc ret io n t o p erm it wit hd rawal

.

San to s- Pu li do co nd it io na ll y pl ed gu il ty to il le ga l reen try, res erv in g th e rig ht

to ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced San to s- Pu li do to ti m e se rv ed (18 1 d ay s)

.

In acco rd an c e wit h he r pl ea ag reem en t, San to s- Pu li do ap pe al s th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ni al of he r m o t i on to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t. San to s- Pu li do co nt en ds th e

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-3

-di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng , w i t h ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th at he r or ig in al

rem ov al ord er “ di d n ot vi ol at e h er ri gh t t o d ue pro ces s.”

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of [San to s- Pu li do ’s] m ot io n to di sm is s” th e in di ct m en t. Uni te d St at es v. Torr es -San ch ez, 68 F.3 d 22 7, 22 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). To pr ov e th e ex pe di te d rem ov al pr oc eed in g was “ fu nd a m en ta ll y un fai r in vi ol at io n of du e pr oc es s,” San to s- Pu li do m us t sh ow bo th “ a fu nd am en ta l pr oc ed ur al

erro r” an d act ua l pr ejud ic e. Id

. at 23 0. In ev al ua ti ng San to s- Pu li do ’s d u e p r o c e ss cl ai m , “ [w]e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r, bu t we rev ie w de no vo whe th er th os e fact s es ta bl is h a d u e p r o c e ss de fect .” Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z, 42 0 F.3 d 83 1, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on
t o r e s o lv e th e m ot io n to di sm is s wit ho ut a he ari ng fo r th e ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Pie rre, 7 95 F.3d 84 7, 8 52 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

Hav in g care fu ll y rev ie wed th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ su bm is si on s, we

co nc lu de th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in de nyin g S an to s- Pu li do ’s m ot io n to di sm is s

w i t h o u t a he ari ng

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at San to s- Pu li do fai le d t o

es ta bl is h a du e p ro ces s v io la ti on . See To rres -San ch ez, 6 8 F .3d at 2 30

.

Not wit hs ta nd in g he r as se rti on s to th e co nt rary, San to s- Pu li d o ’s du e pr oc es s cl ai m do es no t tu rn on a fact ua l di sp ut e ab ou t he r rem ov al pr oc eed in g, no r is it ba se d

up on al le ge d tra ns la ti on erro rs or San to s- Pu li do ’s al le ge d in ab il it y to un de rs ta nd th e bo rd er-p at ro l ag en t’s “ po or [Sp a ni sh ] in te rp ret at io n.” Rat he r, San to s- 2

San to s- Pu li do co nc ed es sh e “ can no t es ta bl is h po or in te rp ret at ion
, ” at tri bu ti ng 2 th at fai lu re to th e la ck of an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Bu t San to s- Pu li do no t on ly fai ls to ad du ce an y co m

pe te nt ev id en ce ev en hi nt in g at im pr op er tra ns la ti on , s ee, e.g ., Tu n

v. Gon zal es , 48 5 F.3 d 10 14
, 10 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ [E]vid en ce of im pr op er tra ns la ti on m ay in cl ud e di rect ev id en ce of m is tra ns la te d w o r d s, ev id en ce th at a wit ne ss is un ab le to un de rs ta nd a tra ns la to r , o r un res po ns iv e an swe rs fro m a wit ne ss .”), San to s- Pu li do al so fai ls to de sc rib e an y pr ob at iv e ev id en ce of pr ejud ic ia l

-4

-Pu li do ’s du e pr oc es s cl ai m is ba se d on he r fal la ci ou s le ga l arg um en t th at sh e ha d th e

“ rig ht to wit hd raw he r ap pl ic at io n fo r ad m is si on at th e bo rd er,” se e 8 C.F.R. § 12 35 .4;
Escu de ro -Co ro na v. INS, 24 4 F.3 d 60 8, 61 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (ex pl ai ni ng an al ie n do es

no t ha ve a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to di sc ret io na ry rel ie f), an d he r un co nt es te d fact ua l

as se rti on th at sh e wou ld ha ve so ug ht to ex erci se th at “ rig ht ” an d vo lu nt ari ly requ este d

ret ur n to Mex ic o, “ [i]f sh e ha d be en pr op erl y ad vi se d.” The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y reject ed th at cl a i m w i t h ou t fu rth er fact ua l de ve lo pm en t. See Po la nc o- Gom ez, 84 1
F.2 d at 23 7- 38 (“ A h eari ng is no t req ui red if a di sp ut e can be res ol ve d o n th e ba si s of th e rec or d.” ).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

tra ns la ti on erro rs sh e wou ld ha ve el ic it ed at an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Cf. Uni te d St at es

v. Po la nc o- Gom ez, 84 1 F.2 d 23 5, 23 7 ( 8 t h C i r

. 1 9 88 ) (fi nd in g, in th e ab se nc e of a
su pp or ti ng affi da vi t, “n o t h i n g in th e reco rd in di cat e[d ] th at [an al ie n] co ul d no t

un de rs ta nd th e in te rp ret er’s Sp an is h tra ns la ti on ” whe re th e al ie n “ ne ve r in di cat ed th at he co ul d no t un de rs ta nd th e” qu es ti on s po se d
, “re sp on de d ap pr op ria te ly,” an d

“ ack no wled ge d t ha t h e u nd ers to od th e in te rp ret er”)

.
-5

-