Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-21
Citations: 574 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 13-10329
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10329.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 14, 2014.
Filed May 21, 2014.
Susan B. Gray, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Manuel Urquidez Araujo, Law Office of Manuel U. Araujo, Morgan Hill, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tomas Ramirez-Gonzalez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, collaterally attacking the underlying removal order as a violation of due process and challenging the validity of his waiver of the right to a trial by jury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. To successfully attack the underlying deportation order, Ramirez-Gonzalez must demonstrate that: "(1) [he] 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 opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair." 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d); United States v. Rojas-Pedroza, 716 F.3d 1253, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 805, 187 L.Ed.2d 609 (2013). "An underlying removal order is 'fundamentally unfair' if: '(1) [a defendant's] due process rights were violated by defects in his underlying deportation proceeding, and (2) he suffered prejudice as a result of the defects.' " United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir.2004) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Zarate-Martinez, 133 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1998)).
An immigration judge ("IJ") is required to inform an individual in removal proceedings of his or her "apparent eligibility" for relief from removal and provide an opportunity to apply for such relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2). An IJ's failure to issue such an advisement violates due process. Rojas-Pedroza, 716 F.3d at 1262; United States v. Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2013). Here, however, the IJ did advise Ramirez-Gonzalez that he "may be eligible" for voluntary departure and offered him an opportunity to apply. Nothing more was required. See Rojas-Pedroza, 716 F.3d at 1263.
2. A defendant can waive his right to a trial by jury if the waiver comports with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), which requires (1) a written waiver, (2) governmental consent, and (3) court approval. United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir.1997). Additionally, a valid waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Id.; United States v. Christensen, 18 F.3d 822, 824 (9th Cir.1994). Compliance with Rule 23(a) creates a presumption that the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985). This presumption ceases to operate only if the record "indicates a special disadvantage or disability bearing upon the defendant's understanding of the jury waiver." Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d at 1003.
Here, Ramirez-Gonzalez's jury waiver complied with Rule 23. It was in writing, the government consented to the waiver, and the court accepted the waiver. Accordingly, the presumption that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent is triggered. Ramirez-Gonzalez does not point to any facts in the record that would indicate he was unable to understand the waiver. Consequently, we conclude that his waiver was valid.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.