NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. EDILBERTO GARCIA

- RAMIREZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 30016
D.C. No. 3:17

- cr - 00449

- JO

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 11, 2020 * * Portland, Oregon Before: BYBEE and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE, ** * District Judge.
Edilberto Garcia

- Ramirez appeals his conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), which

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without ora l argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

is predicated on the July 2011 reinstatement of a February 2011 e xpedited removal
order. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 1294. The district court correctly denied Garcia

- Ramirez’s motion to dismiss his
indictment under 8 U.S. C. § 1326(d), a decision we review de novo. United States
v. Flores , 901 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2018). We need not reach the question of whether the 2011 expedited removal proceedings violated Garcia

- Ramirez’s due process rights because he has failed to demonstrate prejudice. In order to show prejudice, Garcia

- Ramirez must demonstrate that he had “‘plausible grounds for relief’ from the removal order.” Id. at 1162 (quoting United States v. Raya

- Vaca , 771 F.3d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir. 2014)). Garcia

Ramirez argues that he would ha ve plausibly been granted relief in the form of permission to withdraw his application for admission. Withdrawal is discretionary, and the agency uses six factors to guide its exercise of that discretion. See id. While Garcia

- Ramirez had no prior findin gs of inadmissibility at the time of his expedited removal, the other five factors weigh strongly against relief. First, because he had entered the United States illegally on eight prior occasions, his immigration violation was relatively serious. See Ra ya - Vaca , 771 F.3d at 1208. Second, his prior entries and the fact that he evaded lawful ports of entry indicate
an intent to break the law. See id. Third, Garcia

- Ramirez did not have the ability3

to easily overcome inadmissibility because he was not marr ied to a United States citizen, his parents were not United States citizens, and he had no pending petitions for lawful status of any kind. See id. Fourth, he concedes that his relative youth and good health weigh against him. And lastly, Garcia

- Ramirez also concedes that the record is silent regarding humanitarian considerations. Accordingly, it is implausible that Garcia

- Ramirez would have been granted relief from the February 2011 expedited removal order underlying his illegal

reentry conviction.
AFFIRMED
.