Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-437_new_qol1.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

proceeding as an element of a criminal offense must be per-
mitted where the deportation proceeding effectively elimi-
nates the right of the [noncitizen] to obtain judicial review.” 
Id., at 839. 

Congress responded by enacting §1326(d).  See Antiter-
rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),
§441, 110 Stat. 1279.  Entitled “Limitation on collateral at-
tack on underlying deportation order,” §1326(d) establishes
three  prerequisites  that  defendants  facing  unlawful-
reentry charges must satisfy before they can challenge their
original removal orders.  The statute provides: 

“In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien
may not challenge the validity of the deportation order 
. . . unless the alien demonstrates that— 

“(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies
that may have been available to seek relief against the 
order; 

“(2) the deportation proceedings at which the order 
was issued improperly deprived the alien of the oppor-
tunity for judicial review; and 

“(3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.”

8 U. S. C. §1326(d). 

B 
Palomar-Santiago  is  a  Mexican  national  who  obtained 
permanent resident status in 1990.  The following year, he
was convicted in California state court of a felony DUI.  In 
1998, Palomar-Santiago received a Notice to Appear from
the Immigration and Naturalization Service stating that he
was subject to removal because his DUI offense was an ag-
gravated felony.  Following a hearing, an immigration judge
ordered Palomar-Santiago’s removal on that ground.  Palo-
mar-Santiago waived his right to appeal and was removed 
to Mexico the next day.

Six years later, this Court held in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543