N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. VIC TOR DAVID R ODR IGUEZ, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-50238

D.C . No. 3:18-c r-02911-W QH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Q. Ha y e s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 6, 2021 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , WATFORD, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Vic tor R odrigue z a

ppe a ls his fe lony

c onvic tion for a

tte m pte d ille ga l re e ntry in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326, a rguing tha

t his unde rly i ng re m ova ls m ay be
c olla te ra lly atta c ke d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
APR 9 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).A nonc itiz e n is guilty of ille ga l re e ntry

if he re e n te rs the c ountry a fte r having

“ be e n de nie d a dm ission, e xc lude d, de porte d, or re m ove d.” 8 U.S.C . § 1326(a )(1). The nonc itiz e n c an

c o lla te ra lly a tta c k the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r if “ the e ntry of the o rde r wa s funda

m e nta lly unfa ir.” Id. § 1326(d). An orde r is funda m e nta lly unfa ir if: “ (1) [the nonc itiz e n’ s] due proc e ss rights we re viola te d by de fe c ts in the unde rly ing de porta

t ion proc e e ding, a

nd (2) he suffe re d pre

judic e a s a

re sult of the de fe c ts.” Unite d State

s v . Ortiz-Lope

z , 385 F.3d 1202, 1204 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tion omitte d). To show pre judic e , the nonc itiz e n m

ust show “

pla usible grounds for re lie f.” Unite d State s v . Ray a-Vac a , 771 F.3d 1195, 1206 (9th C ir. 2014), abrogate d on othe r grounds by De p’t of Home land Se c . v . Thuraissigiam , 140 S. C t. 1959 (2020). W e re vie w “ the de n ia l of a m otion to dism iss unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1326(d) de novo.” Unite d State s v . Martine

z-He rnande

z , 932 F.3d 1198, 1202 (9th C ir. 2019). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t R odrigue z ’ s due proc e ss rights
we re not viola

te d during his 1998 a

nd 2018 re m ova l s. He argue s tha t the im m igration c ourt la c ke d

jurisdic t ion be c a

use the initia l Notic e s to Appe ar (NTAs) la c ke d the tim e , date , a

nd a d dre ss of the im

m igration he aring. B ut the De p artm e nt of Justic e re g ulat i ons do not re quire the initia l NTA to inc lude the date , tim e , or pla c e of the re m ova l he aring. S e e K aringithi v. W

hitak e r , 913 F.3d 1158, 1158–59
2(9th C ir. 2019); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.15(b); se e also id. § 1003.18 (“ If [this]

inform a t ion is not c onta ine d in the Notic e to Appe ar, the Im m igration C ourt sha ll be re sponsiblefor . . . providing notic e to the gove rnm e nt a nd the a lie n of the tim e , pla c e , a nd da te of he aring.” ). R odrigue z doe s not a lle ge tha t he ne ve r re c e ive d this notic e , a nd he a ppe ars to ha

ve atte nde d both re m o va l he a rings. The se re m ova ls did not de ny R odrigue z due proc e ss, so the y c a nn ot be c olla

t e ra lly atta c ke d unde r § 1326(d). R odrigue z a lso c annot c o lla te ra lly atta c k his 2015 e xpe dite d re m ova l. He sta te s tha t the im m igration offic e r did not offe r him notic e and opportunity

to
re spond a nd did not ha

ve him sign Form

I-867B (the R e c ord of Sworn Sta te m e nt
and Jura t). B ut e ve n

a ssum i ng without de c iding tha t his due proc e ss rights we re viola te d, R odrigue z suffe re d no pre j udic e be c a

use he ha d no “pla

usible grounds for
re lie f.” Se e Ray a -Vac a , 771 F.3d a t 1206. Theonly

re lie f from

e xpe dite d re m ova l is withdra wa l of a n a p plic a tion for a dm ission. The fa c tors gove rning e ligibility for withdra wa l would c le arly have we ighe d a ga inst re lie f, and withdra wa l is a t the disc re tion of theAttorne y Ge ne ra l. Id. at

1207; se e C ustom s & B o rde r Pa trol, Inspe c tor’ s Fie ld M an

ua l § 17.2, 2007 W

L 7710869. R

o drigue z ha d four fe lony
c onvic tions, inc l uding a

n im m igration c onvic t ion. He ha d be e n re m o v e d from

the
c ountry at le a st four tim e s be fore . He ha d lie d on his m ost re c e nt re e ntry
. B e c a use
3he ha d no pla usible grounds for re lie f, the orde r c annot be c olla te ra lly atta c ke d unde r § 1326(d). AFFIRM E D.

4