Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-437_new_qol1.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO 

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

No. 20–437.  Argued April 27, 2021—Decided May 24, 2021 

Respondent Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national living in the United 
States, was convicted in California state court of felony DUI in 1988.
At the time, lower courts understood that conviction to be an “aggra-
vated  felony”  subjecting  a  noncitizen  to  removal  from  the  United 
States.  8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).  Palomar-Santiago was removed 
following a hearing before an immigration judge and a waiver of his 
right to appeal.  In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found in the United 
States  and  indicted  on  one  count  of  unlawful  reentry  after  removal.
See  §1326(a).    The  statute  criminalizing  unlawful  reentry  provides 
that  a  collateral  challenge  to  the  underlying  deportation  order  may 
proceed only if the noncitizen first demonstrates that (1) “any admin-
istrative remedies that may have been available” were exhausted, (2)
“the opportunity for judicial review” was lacking, and (3) “the entry of
the  order  was  fundamentally  unfair.”    §1326(d).    Palomar-Santiago
moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his prior removal 
order was invalid in light of the 2004 holding in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 
U. S. 1, that felony DUI is not an aggravated felony.  Following Ninth
Circuit precedent, the District Court and Court of Appeals held that
Palomar-Santiago  was  excused  from  proving  the  first  two  require-
ments of §1326(d) because his felony DUI conviction had not made him 
removable.  The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, and the 
Ninth Circuit affirmed. 

Held: Each  of  the  statutory  requirements  of  §1326(d)  is  mandatory. 

Pp. 5–8.

(a) The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is incompatible with the text
of  §1326(d),  which  provides  that  defendants  charged  with  unlawful 
reentry “may not” challenge their underlying removal orders “unless”
they “demonstrat[e]” each of three conditions.  Section 1326(d)’s first