F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v. E NC AR NAC I ON G ONZAL EZ
V I L L AL OB OS , Defendant- Appellant

. No. 12-30150

D.C. No. 2:11-cr- 02095- RMP-1

OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court for the E astern D istrict of Washington Rosanna Malouf Pete rson, Chief District Judge, Pre siding

Argued and Submitted Februar y 8, 2013—Seattle, Washington Filed July 26, 2013
Be fore : Ray

mond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould, and Ric ha rd A. Pa e z, Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Opinion by

J udg e PaezU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y *

Crim inal L aw The pa nel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismi ss an indictment charg ing illeg al ree ntry afte r a prior deportation without addressing the m erits of the defenda nt’s ar gume nt t

h at t h e a ll e g e d

p r io r d e p o rtati o np r o c e e d in gwas fundame ntally

unfair.
Th e pa ne l he ld t

hat th e de fe nd ant, wh o e xha us te d h is administrative re medies by appea ling the Immigration Judg e ’s a dv e rs e ru lin gto t he B oa rd of Immi gra tio n App e a ls, fa ile d to sh owtha

t a n e rr or or

ob sta c le re late d to his deportation procee dings imprope rl y deprive d him of the opportunity

for j u d icial re view, as r equire d for a collater al attack on the deportation order unde r 8 U.S. C

. § 1326(d). The panel explained that the I J ’s denial of an e v i d enti ary hearing is not an e rror

that, by its nature, af

fe ct ed the defe ndant’s aw are ness of or a bility to seek judicial re view.

CO UN SEL
Nich o l as Marc hi (argued), Car ney & Ma rchi, P.S., Seattle, Was hin g ton , f

or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. Alexander C. Ekstrom, Ass i s tant United States Attorney ( ar gu e d ) , an d

M i c h a e l C

. O r

m s b y , U n i t e d

S t at e s A tt o r

n e y, Yakima, Washing ton, for Plaintiff-Appe llee.U NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 3

OP IN ION
PAEZ , Circuit J udg e: De fe nd ant En c arn a c ion Go nza le z-V ill a lob os a pp e a ls h is c onvic tio n f

or ill e g a l reentr

y a ft e r a prior de po rt atio n in violation of 8 U

. S.C. § 1326. In the district court he moved to dismi ss the indictmen t o n the ground that the prior deportation order wa s fundame n t all y unfair. See8 U .S. C. § 132 6 ( d )

. A f

te r th e d is tric t c o urt d e n ie d h is mo tion, Gonzalez-Villalobos entere d a conditional gui l t y plea, prese rvinghis right to ap peal the de nial of the motion. On appea l, he renews his challeng e to the prior deportation order

. When a def

endant c olla t erally

attacks the validity

of a prior depor

tation or der in a § 1326 prosec ution, he must show that he exhausted his administrat i v e re medies, that the deportation procee dings imprope rly deprived him of the opportunity

for judicial r eview, a

nd that entry o f the prior d e p o rtati o no r d e r

w a s f un d ame nta ll y

un fair. See8 U .S. C. § 1 32 6( d) (1 )– (3 ). As we e xpla in b e low , we have g e ne ra lly fo un d th at wh e re an a lie n wa s de prive d o f t he op po rt un ity to exhaust his administrative re medies, satisfying § 1326( d)(1) , he a lso ha s sh own that he wa s de prive d of theop po rt

un ity to see k j u dicial re view, satisfying § 1326( d)(2) . Her e, Go nza le z-V ill alob os ha s sh own th at hee xha us te d h is adm i n i s trat i v e r em ed i es b y ap p ea l i n g th e Imm i grat i o nJ u d ge (“ I J”) ’s a dv e rse ru lin gto t he B oa rd of Immi gra tio n App e a ls (“B IA”) . Howeve r, he ha s failed to show that a n error or ob sta c le re late d to his de portatio n p ro c e e din g s im pr op e rl y deprive d him of the opportunity for judicial rev i ew , as require d by

8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2). B eca use subsec tions (d)( 1) , ( d) (2 ), and

(d)( 3) mus t all be satis fi e d e ith e r d ir e c tly o r c o n s tr u c ti v e ly , w e a f

f ir m t h e d e n ia l o f

G o n za le z-U NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 4

W e have reco gni zed t hat “t he Il l egal Imm i grat i o n R ef o rm and 1 Im m i grant R espo nsi b i l i t y A ct of 1 9 9 6 (‘ II R IR A ’ ) amend ed t he i mmi g r at i on st at ut es s o a s t o e l i mi n at e t h e pr ev i ou s l eg al di s t i n ct i on b etwee n deport at i on, r emo val an d exc l us i on, mer gi ng al l of t he se p ro c e e d ing s into a b ro a d e r c a te g o ry e n tit le d ‘ r e m o v a l p ro c e e d ing s.’” Uni t ed St at es v. Lop ez - G on z al ez , 1 8 3 F .3 d 9 3 3 , 9 3 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). W e cont i nu e t o us e t he t er m “ depo r t at i on” i n t hi s opi ni on, howev er , t o t r ack th e l a n g u a g e o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6

. S e e id

. at 93 5 (concludi ng t hat “ any di s t i n ct i on be t we en de por t at i on a n d r emov al i s l eg al l y i n s i g n i f i ca n t f or p urpo ses of § 13 2 6 ”).
“ As of M ar ch 2003, I N S bec ame U n i t ed St at es Ci t i ze n s h i p and 2 Imm i grat i o n Servic e s, an agency wi t hi n t he D ep art m ent of H o m el and Secur i t y
. ” Lop ez - R od r igu ez v. M ukasey , 5 3 6 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 3 n.1 (9 th C i r. 20 0 8 ). Villalobos’s motion t o dismiss and his conviction without addre ssing th e merits of his argument that the alleg ed prior deportation procee ding w as funda mentally unfair.
I.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY

A.
Th e e ve nts surr ound ing the un de rl yingdepo rt atio n in thi s case occur

red more than t wenty

year s ag o. In Marc h 1986,

1 Gonzalez-Villalobos was arr ested in Yakima, Washington, for possession of a

controlled substanc e (c ocaine ) with intent to deliver. He was eventually convicted of this offe nse i n the Sup e ri or Court of Was hin g ton, Co unty

of Ya kim a , in July 19 86 . In c onne c tio n w ithGo nza lez -V ill a lob os ’s arr e st, ag ents from the Immigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) a ssisted the local police w ith the servi ce a nd execution of a sea

rch warr ant at his house. A fe w day s after 2U NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 5

T h i s c on v i ct i on a r os e f r om t h e s ame i n ci den t a s h i s s t at e drug 3
co nvi ct i o n.
T he SA W pro gram w a s a p ro gram t hrough which cer t ai n al i ens who 4 had r es i ded i n t he U ni t ed St at es an d “ perf ormed s easo na l ag r i cul t ur al
se rv ic e s in th e U n ited S ta te s fo r a t le a st 9 0 m a n -d a ys, d u rin g the 1 2 -m o n th peri od en di ng on M ay 1, 198 6” coul d ob t ai n t emp orar y l ega l st at us , wh i ch
wou l d a u t omat i ca l l y adj u s t t o pe r man en t r es i den t s t at u s a f t er a pe r i od of t i m e. 8 U

. S.C

. § 1 1 6 0 (a ); s ee als o So r i an o-Vi no v. Hol der , 653 F. 3d 1 0 9 6 , 10 9 9 (9t h C i r. 20 1 1 ); 8 C

. F.R

. § 2 1 0

. 5 (a). the ar rest, an I NS ag ent pre pare d form I -2 1 3 , “R ecord of D e p o rta b le Alie n , ” in

wh ic hh e r e c o r d e d

G o n za le zVillalobos’s immi gration status and the e vents surrounding his arr e st. Th e I -2 13 c ontain ed an A -f ile numbe r e nd ingin

“ 91 0. ” Th e ne xt day , I

NS se rv e d G on zal e z-V ill a lob os wi th an orde r to show ca

use, alleg ing that he was deporta ble as a n alien in the United States who e ntere d without inspection. Whe n I NS c ou ld not

loc ate Go nza le z-V ill a lob os , it administratively closed the deportation procee ding in January 1987. As it turned out, Gonzalez-Villalobos was incar cer ated in fede ral prison, whe re he was ser ving a sentenc e for

being an a lie n in po sse ssi on of a fir e arm
. Gonzalez-Villalobos 3 completed his fe dera l sentenc e in Dec ember 1987 and upon his relea se he w as take n into custody by I NS

. A fe w wee ks later, I NS relea sed him from custody beca us e it determined that he wa s a cla ss member in a pe nding c l as s action. The ag ency then ca ncelled the pendingorder to show cause

. After his relea se fr om I

NS custody , Gonzalez-Villalobos applied for

leg al status through the “spe cial agricultural worke r” ( “SAW”) program in May 1988. See 8 U .S. C. § 1160; 8 C.F.R. § 210.3. I N S a s s ign e d

Gonzalez- 4 Villalo bos’s SAW application a diffe rent A- file number, endingin “678.” It denied his SAW application in NovemberU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 6
1989 o nth e gr o un d

th at h is s tate dr

u gc o nv ic ti o nr e n d e r ed him ineligible for

the program. Gonz alez-Villalobos appea led, and the I

NS L eg alization Appeals Unit affir med the de nia l of his a pp lic ati on in F e br

ua ry 19 91 . App are ntl y unawa re of the Appea ls U n i t ’s ruling , Gonzalez-Villalobos visited an I

NS of fice in N ovember 1991 to inquire about the status of his SAW application. Whil e ther e, he w as deta ined by I NS agents, who imm ediately completed a

second I -213, rec iting Gonzalez-Villalobos’s conviction re cord a nd detention history

. This I -213 had the same A- file number a s the one prepa

red in 1986, e nding in “ 910.” The next day , I NS is s u e d ano r d e r

t o s h o wc a

u s e , a l l e g i n gth atG o n z a l e zVillalobos was depor

table as a n alien who ha d been c onvicted of a c ontrolled substance offe nse. A t ad e p o rtati o nh e ar in gin Ap r il1 9 9 2 , G o n za le zVi lla lob os argue d th at I

NS a g e nts wr on g fu lly

dis c ov e re d h is conviction re cord by

looking through the S AW file. He ar gu e d th at “ wh e nh e w e nt t o c h e c k o nh is le g a liz ation application and the curr ent status of it, they revie wed the computer a

nd the file a

nd asked him to wait th ere. They ma de a ph on e c a ll a

nd su bs e qu e ntl y , f

ro m a c ro ss t

he ha ll, wher e the deportation secti o nand the leg alization office a re in the same buildingacr oss the hall, came t h e ag ent from I NS.”
Go nza le z-V ill a lob os re qu e ste d a su pp re ssi on he aringso that he could que stion the I NS age nts on how they

obtained his criminal h i s t o ry

rec ord. In response , the I J asked the g overnme n t ’s at torney

to “assure [hi m] as an of fice r of the Court that [ the evidenc e] did not result from a sting ope ration be ingop e rate d b y

the inv e sti g ativ e arm

of theSe rvic e in conjunction with the leg alization off ice.” The g overnme nt’s attorney informed the c ourt t h at h e was not offering a nyU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 7

e v i d e n ce th atcam e f

ro mth e S AW l ega l i z at i o nfi l e. T h e IJ then denied the reque st for a suppr ession hearing, stating that

“ the e v i d e n c e s u

b m i tt e d b y th e S e r

v i c e w a s t o t a lly in d e p e n d e nt o f

th e le g a li zati o np r o c e s s
. ” Sh e f urther conclude d that Gonzalez-Villalobos was not e ligible f or any r e l i e f an d a c c o r d i n g l y e nt e r e d

a d e p o rt at i o no r d e r
. T h e IJ also informed G onzalez-Vil l alobos and his attorney of the right to appeal h er ru l ing to the B IA. Gonzalez-Villalobos tim e ly a pp e a le d, prima

ri ly c ha lle ng ingtheI J’s d e nia l of his re qu es tfo r as u

p p re s s i o nh eari n g. The B IA subsequently

dismiss ed Gonzalez-Villalobos’s appea l, finding that he had not ca rried his bur den of justifying the need for a suppression hearing

. Gonzalez-Villalobos then a pp lie d for a sta

y of de po rt atio n, wh ic h I

NS d e nie d in

Ap ri l 1999. The re cord doe s not refle ct whethe r he f iled a petition for r eview in the Ninth Circuit, but it does re flec t that he filed a petition for a

writ of habe as cor

pus in the United States District Court f

or the Western D istrict of Washington. Upon filing the petition, he sought a tempora ry re strainingorder enjoini n g h is deportation. He w as depor ted to Mexi co, h o w e v e r , o nAp r il1 3 , 1 9 9 9

. Sh o rtl y afte rw ar d s , G o n za le zVillalobos agree d to dismi ss the pet i t i on and withdra w the motion.
B.
The e vents leadingto Gonzalez-Villalo b os’s curr ent pros e c uti o nar e f

a irly s tr a igh tf o r w ar d

. A t s o me p o int a fter beingdeporte d, Gonzalez-Vil l al o bos returne d to the United States. He was located in Yakima County in J uly 2011, and a fe w wee ks later, he was a rre sted and charg ed with beingan alien in the United St ates a fter deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The parties a gree that the 1992 depor tationU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 8

G o nzal ez- V i l l al o b o s argues t hat t he co nvi ct i o n rec o rd s sh o ul d have 5 b e e n su p p re sse d

. A ltho u g h the e x c lus io n a ry rule ge n e ra lly d o e s n o t ap p ly i n c iv i l d ep o rtat i o n p ro ce ed i ng s, M art i nez - M edi na v. Hol der , 673 F. 3d 10 29 , 103 3 (9t h Ci r
. 20 11 ) , i t does appl y wh er e t he i mm i gr at i on ag enc y v io la te s its o w n ru le s if (1 ) “th e re g u la tio n se rv e s a p u rp o se o f b e n e fit to t he ali en ,” an d (2) “ t he vi ol at i on pre j udi ced i nt er es t s of

t he al i en whi ch
wer e pr ot ect ed by t he r egu l at i on, ” Uni t ed St at es v
. Cal der on- M edi na , 5 9 1 F .2 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 1 (9 th C ir. 1 9 7 9 ); s ee als o H on g v. M ukasey , 518 F. 3d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). H e r e , G o n z a le z -V ill a lo b o s a rg u e s tha t his c o n v ic tio n re c o rd s sh o u ld ha v e b e e n su p p re sse d b e c a u se the IN S a g e n ts v i o l at ed 8 U

. S.C

. § 1 1 6 0 (b)(6)(A ), a s t at ut o ry co nf i d ent i al i t y gu ar an t ee f

or SAW a ppl i ca n t s
. At t h e t i me of t h e al l eged v i ol at i on , t h i s pr ov i s i on p r oh i bi t ed of

f i ci al s f r om u s i n g i n f

or mat i on pr ov i ded i n a SAW a ppl i ca t i on “fo r a n y p u rp o se o the r th a n to m a k e a d e te rm ina tio n o n the a p p lica tio n .” 8 U

. S.C

. § 1 1 6 0 (b)(6)(A ) ( 1 9 9 1 ). order , aff irmed by t h e BIA in 1999, was the a lleg ed prior deportation. Gonzalez-Vill alobos mo ved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the 1992 deportation order w as in valid beca

use the I J had er

red in de nying his motion for a suppression hea

ring . The d i s t rict cour

t denied the motion, f in d in gth at e v e nif

th e I J h a d

e r r e d in d e nyin gG o nzalezVillalobos’s moti o n , he could not esta blish prejudice. Gonzalez-Villalobos then entere d a conditional guilty plea, pr e se rv ing his ri ght to ap pe a l the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of his moti o n to d is mi s s
. F o ll o w in g e ntr y o f th e ju d g me nt and commitment order, Gonzalez-Villalobos timely ap p e a le d . He argues th at th e un d e r ly in g d e p o rtation order wa s fundame ntally

unfair, a nd there fore invalid, beca use it was ba se d o n c onvic tio n r e c or ds that th e I NS a g ent s unla

wf ull y discovere d in his S AW file, and beca use the I J did not grant an e vid e nti ary

he ari ngon

ho w th e ag e nts ob ta ine d th os e re c or ds

. 5U NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 9

II.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW
We re v i ew d e novo the denial of a motion to dismis s an indictment alleg ing a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 when the basis for the motion is an alleg ed due pr ocess violation in the underlying deportation pr ocee ding. United States v. UbaldoFigueroa , 364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9 t h Cir. 2004). We review for c lear err or the d istrict court’s fa ctual finding s. United States v. Camacho-

Lopez , 450 F.3d 928, 929 (9th Cir. 2006).
III
. AN AL YSI S
I na p r o s e c ut i o nf

o r i l l e g a l r e e ntr

y un d e r 8 U

. S.C. § 1326(a) , the g overnme nt must prove, int er alia , that the d efe ndant was pr eviously “denie d admission, ex cluded, depo rt e d, or

re mov e d o r h a s d e pa

rt e d th e Un ite d St ate s whil e ano r d e r o f e xc lu s io n , d e p o rtati on , o r r e mo v a l [ w a ]s outst and ing .” 8 U .S. C. § 13 26 (a)( 1) ; se eals o 9th Cir. Model Crim. J ury

Instr. 9.8 (2010). The defe ndant, in tur n, has a due proce ss right to collatera lly attack the underly

ing deportation or de r, be c a

us e it serve s a s a

pr e dic ate e le me nt o f t

he c ri me for whic h he is cha

rg ed. United States v. Me ndoza-Lopez , 481 U.S. 828, 837–38 (1987) ( “Our case s establish that where a de te rm inatio n ma de in a n a dmi ni st rativ e pr oc e e din gis t o play a critical role in the subsequent imposi tion of a criminal sanction, there must be some meaning ful revie w o f the administrative proc eeding .”). Thus, “whe re the defe cts in an admi nistrative proc eedingfore close judicial re view of that proce eding , an alter

native mea

ns of obtainingjudicial revie w must be made available be fore the administrative orde r mayU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 10 be used to e s ta

b li s hc o n c lu s iv e ly

ane le me nt o f

a c r im in al offe nse.” Id. at 83 8; see also U nited States v. ZarateMartinez , 133 F.3d 1194, 1197 ( 9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Corona-Sanche z , 291 F.3d 120 1 ( 9 th Ci r
. 2 0 1 2 ) ( e nb an c ) ( “ Ina c r im in a l p r o s e cution un de r § 13 26 , th e Du e Pr oc e ss Clau se of the F if th Amen dment require s a mea ningf ul opportunity

for judicial revie w of the unde rlying depo rt ation. I f the de fenda nt’s dep o rtation proce eding s fail to provide this opportunity , the validity of the deportation may

be collate rally

attacke d in the criminal proc eeding .” (c itation omit ted)).
A def endant who c ollatera lly

challeng es the a ll eged d ep o rt at i o no rd er

mu s tes t ab l i s hth e f

o l l o wi n g: (1) [he] ex hausted any administrative reme dies that may

have been available to seek relief ag ainst the order ; (2) the deport ati on proce eding s at which the order was issued improperly

deprive d [h im] of the op po rt

un ity fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w; and (3 ) t he e ntr y of the or de r w a s f

undam ental ly unfair.
8 U.S. C. § 1326 (d) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; see also United States v . R e y es-Bo nilla , 671 F.3d 1036 , 1 0 43 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. de nied, 133 S. Ct . 322 (2012) (“Thr ough the addition of su bs e c tio n ( d) to [8 U. S.C. § 1 32 6] in 19 96 , Congre ss partially codified the Court’s decision in Me nd oza– Lop e z. ”). We conclude that Gonzalez-Villalobos has failed to show that the depor tation proce edingat which his depor tation order w as issued improperly

deprive d him o f t he opportunity forU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 11

B e c a u se w e c o n c lud e tha t G o n z a le z -V ill a lo b o s f a iled to c a rr y his 6 b u rd e n w ith re sp e c t t o 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (d )( 2 ), w e d o no t re a c h his
a rg u m e n t t h a t t h e IJ ’s d e n ia l o f an e v id e n ti a r y he a rin g a n d failur e to s uppres s hi s conv i ct i on r ecor ds r es ul t ed i n t he ent r y of an order t hat was

“ f un dam ent al l y un f

ai r
. ” See 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (d )( 3 ); s ee al s o s upr a n ot e 5.

P ut ano t her way , i n s uch cases t he d ef end ant i s excused f

rom s at i sf

y i ng 7 (d )( 1 ) an d sa tisf

ie s (d )( 2 ). See , e
. g. , Ubal do- Fi guer oa , 364 F. 3d at 1050 (c o n c lud ing tha t “ a lt h o u g h U b a ld o -F igu e ro a d id no t ex h a u st his
a d m inistr a ti v e re m e d ie s b y a p p e a ling his r e m o v a l o rd e r to the B IA in 1 9 9 8 , he is ex e m p te d fro m the e x h a u s ti o n b a r b e c a u se his w a ive r o f his right t o ap p ea l wa s no t suf f i cien t l y co nsid ere d an d i ntell i ge nt, ” a nd as a r es ul t , he was “ depri ved of t he o p po r t un i t y f

or mean i ng f

ul j udi ci al revi ew” (i nt ernal quo t at i o n m arks om i t t ed ))

. judicia l r e v ie w , a s r e qu ir e d b y 8 U

. S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( d ) ( 2 ) , and there fore has not met his burden unde r § 1326(d)

. 6
A.
Al tho ugh 8 U. S.C. § 1 32 6( d) (1 ) a nd (d)( 2) arese pa

ra te re qu ir e me nts , w e have g e ne ra lly he ld t hat whe rean a lie n is deprive d o f hi s right t o a pp e a l to the B IA, he satis fi e s b oth (d)( 1) and (d)( 2). This ma kes sense, beca

use an al i en who fa ils to e xha

us t his a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s d ue to a n e rr or in the un de rl yingpr oc e e din g s, satis fy ing(d)( 1) , w il l ty

pic a lly also be deprived of t h e opportunity for judicial r eview, s at i s fying ( d)(2)

. See United States v. Pallares-Galan , 7 359 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Ef fec tive deprivation of an al i en ’s administrative appe al serve s to deprive him of the opportunity

for judicial r eview a s well.”).
The c ases in which we have de termined that § 1326(d) (1) and (d) (2) we re satisfi edcan be divided into three overla pping c ateg ories. F irst, we have held that § 1326(d)( 1) and (d) (2) a

re satisfied when the I J failed to infor m the alienU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 12

W e al so have hel d t hat § 1 3 2 6 (d)(1) and (d )( 2 ) are sat i sf i ed when t he 8 g ov er n men t , r at h er t h an t h e I J, m i s i n f or ms an al i en t h at he i s i n el i g i bl e f or re lief. Uni t ed St at es v. A r i as- O r do nez , 597 F. 3d 972, 977 ( 9t h Ci r
. 2010) (consi d eri ng an o rder t o repo rt f o r r em o val t hat err o neo usl y i nf o rme d t he al i en t hat “ no admi ni s t r at i ve r el i ef ” was avai l abl e t o hi m, and not i ng t hat i t i s “wel l est ab l i shed t hat § 1 3 2 6 (d)’ s requir em ent s o f exhaust io n and d ep ri vat i o n of judici al revi ew are sat i sf i ed when t he go vern m e nt m i si nf o rms an al i en t hat he i s i nel i gi b l e f o r r el i ef ”). that he had a right to appea l his deportation order to the BIA. See U baldo-Fi g u eroa , 364 F.3d at 1050 (“Uba ldo-Figueroa was deprived of the opportunity for mea ningf ul judicial re vi e w b e c a

u s e th e I J d i d n o t i n f

o r m h i m o f h i s r ig ht t o a pp e a l hi s d e po rt atio n o rder.” ); Re y es-Bo nilla , 671 F.3d at 1045 (same)

. Second, we have he ld that an I J ’s fa ilure t o i n form the a lie n th at he i s e lig ibl e fo r a c e rt a in t y pe of re lie f a lso satisfies § 1326(d)(1) and ( d)(2) , beca use “a n alien who is not made a war e o f ‘his or her appa

rent e ligibility ’ for

relief has had no ‘me aning ful opportunity to appea l’ the re moval and seek such re lief.” Un ite d S tates v . V ida l- Me nd oza , 705 F.3d 10 12 , 1 01 5 ( 9th

Cir . 2 013) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; se eals o United States v. Lopez-Ve lasquez , 629 F.3d 894, 901 ( 9th Cir. 2010) (e n banc) (holding that an I J must “inform the alien of a re asonable possibili ty

that the petit ioner may

be elig ible for relief ” (in t ern al quotation marks omitted)). Thus , w e he ld 8 th at§ 1 3 2 6 ( d ) ( 1 ) an d

( d ) ( 2 ) w e r e s at i s f

i e d w h e nth e IJ improperly

char acte rized a prior c onviction as an ag gravated felony and er roneous l y i n formed the alien that he w as ineligible for discr etionary relief , Camacho-Lopez , 450 F.3d at 93 0; Pallares-Galan , 35 9 F .3 d at 1 10 3; United States v. Leon-Paz , 340 F.3d 1003, 1005–06 (9th Cir. 2003); when the I J did no t i n form the a lien that he wa s elig ible for voluntar y depar ture or f ailed to gi v e him an opportunity to apply forU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 13 such re lief, Un ite d S

tates v . M e le nd e z- Cas tro , 671 F.3d 950, 95 4 ( 9th Cir . 2 01 2) ; United States v. Ortiz-Lopez , 385 F.3d 1202, 1204 n.2 (9t h Cir. 2004); and whe n the I J did not inf o r m th e a li e n th at h e w a s e li g ib le f o r r e li e f un d e r I

NA § 2 1 2 (c), Ubaldo-Figueroa , 364 F.3d at 1049–50, or I NA § 212(h), Un ite d S

tates v . A rri e ta , 2 24 F .3 d 1 07 6, 10 79 (9 th Cir. 2000) (not discussing(d)( 1) or ( d)(2) specific ally , but c on c lud ingthat be c a

us e Ar ri e ta wa s n ot i nfor

me d o f h is e lig ibi lity fo r a § 2 12 (h ) w a ive r, he w as de nie d d uepr oc e ss and a me aning ful opportunity for judicial r eview)

. Third, when a

n alien has waived his right to appe al to the BI A, h e can neve rtheless satisfy § 1326(d)( 1) and ( d)(2) by showingthat his waiver w as not “conside red and intellige nt.” Re y es-Bo nilla , 6 71 F .3 d at 10 43 ; see also Un i t ed Stat es v. Ramos , 623 F.3d 672, 682 ( 9th Cir. 2 0 1 0 ) (c oncludingthat a lie n’ s “wai ver of

his ri ght t o a

pp e a l . . . w a s p ro c e dura lly defe ctive and deprive d him of the opportunity for mea ningf ul jud ic ia l re vie w, ” the reby me e tin g his burd e n un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1326(d)( 1) and ( d)(2) ). This categ ory of ca s es often overla ps with the prior two categ ories, since t h e I J ’s fa ilure to inform an alien of his right to appea l, or his eligibility for re lie f, c an f

or m th e ba sis of an inva lid

wa ive r o f t

he ri ght t o appea l. See, e .g. , Ubaldo-Figueroa , 364 F.3d a t1048 (“U baldo-F igue roa’ s waiver of his right to a ppeal his re moval or de r w a s n ot s uf

fi c ie ntl y ‘c on sid e re d a

nd int e lli g e nt’ beca use the I J pres iding ove r the re moval proce edingfailed to inf orm him that he had the right to appea l hi s re m oval or de r t o th e B IA. ” ); Pallares-Galan , 3 5 9 F.3d at 1096 (holding that an alien’s waiver of hi s right to appea l was not

“ c on sid e re d a

nd int e lli g e nt” be c a

us e the I J er

ron e ou sly tol d him that he wa s in e lig ibl e fo r r e lie f) ; A rri e ta , 224 F.3d at 1079 (“Mr . Arrie ta argues persuasively that he could not make a c on sid e re d an d inte lli g e nt de c isi on a bo ut his ri ght t oU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 14

W e do not s ug ges t t hat t hes e a r e t he onl y s i t uat i ons i n w hi ch an al i en 9
c a n s a tisf

y the re q u ire m e n ts o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (d )( 2 ). See , e
. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. P er ez , 33 0 F .3 d 9 7 , 1 0 1 (2d C i r. 20 0 3 ) ( “D ep ri vat i o n of t he o p p o rt uni t y f

o r j ud i cia l revi ew can b e est ab l i shed b y de m o nst rat i ng i nef f ect i ve as s i s t anc e of

coun s el, a nd t he f

ai l ur e of coun s el t o f

i l e a § 2 1 2 (c ) a p p lica tio n c a n c o n stitute ine ff e c tive a ssista n c e o f co u n se l.”)

. C f. Uni t ed St a t es v
. V

i l l avi cenci o-Bu r r uel , 60 8 F.3d 55 6 , 56 0 n. 2 (9t h C i r. 2 010) ( f

i n di n g t h at 8 U

. S. C. § 1326( d) ( 1) w as n ot s at i s f i ed, a nd di s t i n g u i s h i ng P e rez o n t he ground t hat “ co unsel [i n P er ez ] s t at ed at t he depo r t at i on he ar i ng t hat he ‘ woul d f i l e’ an appl i cat i on f

or r el i ef an d t hen f ai l ed t o do s o i n a ti m el y fas hi o n w i t ho ut inf o rming hi s cl i ent , t hus f ai l i ng to a c t a s c o m p e te n t c o u n se l,” w h e re a s in V i l l avi cenci o-Bu r r uel , t he co urt c o u ld n o t “c o n c lud e tha t t h e a tto rn e y e x c e e d e d he r a u tho rity o r fa iled to a c t as c o m p e te n t co u n se l b y no t p u rs u ing a n a p p e a l,” b e c a u se th e a lien ’s
a tto rn e y “re se rv e d a r igh t o f ap p e a l o n his c lien t’s b e h a lf, b u t d id no t state t hat s he woul d f

i l e a n a p p ea l ” and t he r ecor d was “ s i l ent on wh et her V i l l avi cencio aut ho ri zed or d i rect ed hi s at t o rney t o f i l e an ap p eal ”). appea l beca

use the I J never

informed him of his e ligibility for a § 212(h) waiver .”). 9
B.
A g a in s t t h is le g a l b a c k dr o p , we tur nto G o n za le zVillalobos’s challeng e to the validity of the 1992 deportation order

. Her e, unlike in the ca ses discussed a bove, we cannot resolve 8 U .S.C. § 1326(d)(1) a nd (d)( 2) in the same stroke

. Gonz ale z -Vi ll alo bo s has c le arl y satis fi e d 8 U. S.C. § 1 32 6( d) (1 ) b y

sh ow ingthat he a

pp e a le d the I J’s d e c isi on

to the B IA. B ut he has fa iled to s h o w t h at “the deportation pr o c e e d i n g s atwh i c hth e o r d e r w a s i s s u e d

i mp r o p e rl y deprive d [hi m] of the opportunity for judicia l re v iew,” a s require d by

8 U.S. C

. § 1326(d)( 2). Unlike the e rror s discussed above , the er ror that Gonzalez-Vill alobos alleg es—the denial of an evidentiar y hearing—is not an e rrorU NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 15

In r es po ns e t o t he cour t ’ s reques t f or s uppl ement al b r i ef

i ng o n w het her 10 G onzal ez- V i l l al ob os had s at i s f i ed 8 U

. S. C

. § 13 26 ( d)( 2), G onzal ezV i l l al ob os al s o ar gu ed t ha t h e “ [ h] y po t het i cal l y
. . . mi gh t ha ve been
e ligib le fo r § 2 1 2 (c ) re lief a t t h e ti m e o f his im m igr a tio n p ro c e e d ing s,” a n d the IJ ’s f

a il u re to a d v ise him o f suc h re lief “m a y ha v e ” im p ro p e rly depri ved h i m o f

t he op po r t un i t y f

or jud i ci al r evi ew. T hi s ar gu ment was n ot r ai s ed i n G on za l ez - V i l l al obos ’ s ope n i n g br i ef a n d i s t h er ef

or e wa i v ed. E ven i f i t were no t waived, G o nzal ez- V i l l al o b o s has f ai l ed t o i d ent i f

y any fac ts tha t sho u ld ha v e a le rte d the IJ to th e p o ssib ili ty th a t h e w a s e ligib le fo r su c h re lief. See Lop ez - V el asquez , 6 2 9 F

. 3 d a t 9 0 0 ( “ [ T] h e I J i s n ot re q u ire d to a d v ise a n a lien o f p o ssib le re lief w h e n the re is n o fac tua l b a sis f o r r el i ef i n t he reco rd.”)

. that, by its nature, af

fec ted his awa

rene ss of or ability

to seek judicial revie w. Nor does Gonzalez-Villalobos a lleg e an err or so harmful or p e r v a s iv e th at i t a lt e r e d

th e c o ur s e o f

h is d e p o rtation proce eding s such that he wa s eff ectively deprive d of the o p p o rtun i ty

fo r j u d i ci al re v i ew
. T h i s i s p erh ap s un s urp ri s i n g, g ive n th at G on zal e z-V ill a lob os did, in f act, seek ju d icial revie w. Afte r appea ling the I J ’s decision to the B IA, he f iled a petition for a

writ of habe as cor

pus in the United States District Court for the Western Dis trict of Washington, whic h he late r d ism iss e d. He do es no t argue that hi s a bil ity to f ile the ha be a s p e tit ion

wa s c on str a ine d b y

the a lle g e d e rr or

at hi s deportation procee ding, n o r d o es he a rgue that the e rror cause d him to raise inapposite arguments in the petiti o nor aff ecte d his decision to voluntarily withdraw the p et i t i on. Instead, Gonzalez-Villalobos asks the c ourt to fi n d t h at he wa s d e prive d o f j ud ic ia l r e vie w o n th e gro un d th at he has a right to “meaning ful revie w of the unde rlyi n g deportation,” and in t he a bs e nc e of prior jud ic ia l r e vie w, is e nti tled to i t now. 10U NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 16 We d e c lin e to a do pt G on zal e z-V ill a lob os ’s argum e nt, which i s based on a

misreadingof Mendoza- Lopez and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2). In Mendoza- Lopez , th e Sup re me Court he ld t hat “ where th e d

efec ts in an administrative procee ding foreclose judi cial revie w of that procee ding , an alternative means of obta ining judicial revie w must be made avail abl e be fo re the a dmi nis tr ativ e or de r m ay be us e d to establish conclusively

an element of a c riminal offe nse.” 481 U.S. at 838 (empha sis added). And the requir ements of 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 6 (d ) l i k ew i s e m ak e c l ear th at i t i s n o t en o u gh for the de fenda

nt to show that “the entry of th e o rd er was fundame ntally

unfair,” as re qui red by (d)( 3), and that he exhausted his administrative r emedies, a s require d by (d)( 1); he mus t als o show that “the deportation pr ocee dings at which the orde r wa s issu ed improperly deprive d [hi m] of the opportunity

for judicial r eview.” See8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (2).
In other words, wher e the de fenda nt has failed to identify any obstacle that preve nted him from obtain i n g judicial revie w of a deportation or der, he is not entitled to such revie w as par t of a c ollatera l attack unde r 8 U. S.C. § 1326(d). See United States v. Adame -Orozco , 607 F.3d 647, 652 ( 10th Cir. 20 10 ) ( “ Th e re c an b e no g e nu ine dis pute tha t [th e de fe nd ant] re c e ive d what proce ss § 13 26 (d)( 2) pr omi se s. He fr e e ly admits that he was a

ble t o (a n ddid) appe al the I J ’s deportation order to the B IA, and he identifies no impediment to his ability

to appea l the BIA’s dec ision to a feder al c ourt .” ); see also United States v . Hinojosa-Perez , 206 F.3d 832, 836 (9th C i r. 2000) ( holding that § 1326( d)(2) was not satisfied whe re the defe ndant al l eged a failure to provide notice of his depor

tation hearing, be cause “the d o o rs to the courts we re ope n to [ t h e defenda nt’s] l ack of

notice due proce ss argument”).U NI TED S T A T ES V
. G ONZAL EZ -V I L L AL OB OS 17

W e do not s u g g es t t h at t h e a l l eg ed e r r or or obs t ac l e i n t h e depor t at i on 11 pr oc e e di n g s t h a t de pr i v e d a de f e n da n t of

j u di c i a l r e v i e w mu s t be t h e s a me as t he al l ege d er r or or obst acl e t ha t m ad e ent r y of t he depo r t at i on order f un dam ent al l y unf

ai r
. A d ef

endan t co ul d concei vabl y col l at er al l y at t ack
a pr i or de por t at i on or der by a s s er t i n g t h at on e d ef ect in t h e pr i or d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d ing s m a d e e n try o f the d e p o rta tio n o rd e r u n fair (e .g., tha t he w a s u n fair ly p re c lud e d fro m p re se n ting e v id e n c e d e m o n stra ting his
en t i t l eme n t t o r el i ef

) a n d a di f

f er en t obs t ac l e or def

ec t i n t h e depor t at i on procee di ng s depri ved h i m o f j udi ci al r evi ew ( e. g. , i nef f ect i ve as s i s t anc e o f co unsel ). Although we have “ interpre ted [the] narr ow criteria [of § 1326(d)] broadly ,” Vi da l- Me nd oza , 705 F.3d at 1015, where a de fe nd ant h a s ful ly e xha

us te d h is a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s, we c onclude that the de fen d an tmust show an actua l or constructive ina

bility to seek j u d i cial review, re lated to an a lle g e d e rr or or ob sta c le in the de po rt atio n pr oc e e di ngs, to satisfy § 1326(d)(2). Gonzalez-Villalobos has failed to do

11 so he re , a

nd the re fo re ha s n ot me t hi s b ur de n p ur su ant t o 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2).
IV.

CO NC LU SION
We c on c lud e that Gon zal e z-V ill a lob os fa ile d to c a rr y his burden of showingthat “the deportation proce eding s at which the [de po rt atio n] or de r w a s is su e d im pr op e rl y deprive d [hi m] of theop po rt

un ity fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w, ” and the re fo rehis collater al attac k on the underlying deportation o rd er cannot be sustained. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)( 2).
AF F IRMED.