Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181115_0001093.WVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 10:00:27
Document Index: 531087846

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1326', '§ 1229', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326']

Juan Cortez, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Juan Cortez's motion to dismiss the indictment. (Dkt. 25). The indictment contains one count, charging Cortez with illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. (Dkt. 15). Cortez argues that the indictment should be dismissed because the notice to appear issued to him failed to specify the time and date of the removal proceedings against him, as he contends is required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) and Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018). Cortez advances two specific attacks on the indictment. First, Cortez argues that without a valid notice to appear, subject matter jurisdiction never vested in the immigration court, rendering that court's deportation order a legal nullity. Second, Cortez launches a collateral attack against his deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), arguing that his initial deportation proceedings lacked fundamental fairness.
The Court declines to dismiss the indictment on jurisdictional grounds. Moreover, Cortez's collateral attack on the underlying deportation order fails because, although the initial notice to appear lacked the time and date of the removal proceedings, Cortez attended and participated in his deportation hearing via video conference. Cortez therefore cannot make the necessary showing under § 1326(d) that his deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the indictment will be denied.
On October 25, 2018, Juan Cortez was indicted on one count of illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. (Dkt. 15). Cortez, allegedly a native of Mexico, was served in person with a notice to appear on February 27, 2011. (Dkt. 25-2). This notice to appear ordered Cortez to appear on “a date to be set” and “at a time to be set” to “show why [he] should not be removed from the United States.” (Id.). The notice nowhere specified the time or date when Cortez should appear. On March 17, 2011, Cortez appeared via video conference at a removal hearing, at which he was ordered deported. (Dkt. 25-1). The immigration court's removal order indicates that Cortez waived his right to appeal the order. (Id.). The indictment states that Cortez was removed from the United States on or about April 22, 2011, and was later found in the United States on or about September 19, 2018. (Dkt. 15). The illegal reentry charge at issue followed.
Cortez advances two arguments in support of his motion to dismiss the indictment. First, he argues the indictment should be dismissed because subject matter jurisdiction never vested in the immigration court. Second, he contends the indictment should be dismissed under the factors set forth for a collateral attack on a deportation order in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). The Court has recently addressed these arguments in ruling on several motions to dismiss indictments in similar illegal reentry cases. See, e.g., United States v. Saravia-Chavez, No. 3:18-cr-00016, Dkt. 39 (denying motion to dismiss indictment); United States v. Ramos-Delcid, No. 3:18-cr-00020, 2018 WL 5833081 (W.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2018) (dismissing indictment under § 1326(d)). Cortez has “expressly adopt[ed] all of the arguments in those cases” for consideration here, acknowledging that his case is “indistinguishable” from two cases-United States v. Saravia-Chavez, 3:18-cr-00016, and United States v. Ramirez, 3:18-cr-00026-where the Court has recently denied identical motions to dismiss indictments. (Dkt. 25 at 1). We consider each of Cortez's arguments below.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. Immigration Court's Subject Matter Jurisdiction ...