Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-437_new_qol1.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO 

Opinion of the Court 

prior removal order was premised on a conviction that was
later found not to be a removable offense.  The Court holds 
that the statute does not permit such an exception. 

I 
A 
Foreign  nationals  may  be  removed  from  the  United
States  if  they  are  convicted  of  an  “aggravated  felony.”    8 
U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).  Among the offenses that qualify 
as aggravated felonies are “crime[s] of violence . . . for which 
the  term  of  imprisonment  [is]  at  least  one  year.”
§1101(a)(43)(F).  The term “crime of violence” includes “an 
offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or 
threatened use of physical force against the person or prop-
erty of another.”  18 U. S. C. §16(a).

Noncitizens  facing  removal  generally  receive  a  hearing 
before  an  immigration  judge.    Noncitizens  can  proffer  de-
fenses at that hearing, including that the conviction identi-
fied in the charging document is not a removable offense.  If 
unsuccessful, they may appeal to the Board of Immigration
See  8  U. S. C.  §1229a(c)(5);  8  CFR 
Appeals  (BIA). 
§§1003.1(b),  (d)(3),  1240.15  (2021).    If  unsuccessful  again, 
they can seek review of the BIA’s decision before a federal 
court of appeals.  See 8 U. S. C. §§1101(a)(47), 1252. 

Once a noncitizen is removed, it is a crime to  return to 
the  United  States  without  authorization.    §1326(a).    The 
statute criminalizing unlawful reentry did not originally al-
low  defendants  to  raise  the  invalidity  of  their  underlying 
removal orders as an affirmative defense.  This Court later 
held, however, that the statute “does not comport with the
constitutional requirement of due process” insofar as it “im-
pose[s] a criminal penalty for reentry after any deportation,
regardless of how violative of the rights of the [noncitizen]
the deportation proceeding may have been.”  United States 
v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U. S. 828, 837 (1987).  “[A]t a mini-
mum,”  “a  collateral  challenge  to  the  use  of  a  deportation