Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-437_bqmc.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–437 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. REFUGIO 
PALOMAR-SANTIAGO 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[May 24, 2021]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
In  1998,  respondent  Refugio  Palomar-Santiago  was  re-
moved from the United States based on a conviction for fel-
ony driving under the influence (DUI).  He later returned 
to the United States and was indicted on one count of un-
lawful reentry in violation of 8 U. S. C. §1326(a).  Between 
Palomar-Santiago’s  removal  and  indictment,  this  Court
held that offenses like his DUI conviction do not in fact ren-
der noncitizens removable.  Palomar-Santiago now seeks to
defend against his unlawful-reentry charge by challenging 
the validity of his 1998 removal order. 

By statute, defendants “may not” bring such collateral at-
tacks  “unless”  they  “demonstrat[e]”  that  (1)  they  “ex-
hausted any administrative remedies that may have been
available to seek relief against the [removal] order,” (2) the 
removal proceedings “improperly deprived [them] of the op-
portunity  for  judicial  review,”  and  (3)  “entry  of  the  order
was fundamentally unfair.”  §1326(d).

The question for the Court is whether Palomar-Santiago
is excused from making the first two of these showings, as 
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, because his