Opinion ID: 678565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United States v. Proa-Tovar

Text: 36 In November 1989, Proa-Tovar was charged with violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326. At trial, he sought to exclude his prior deportation order arguing that his due process rights were violated in the deportation hearing since he was not properly advised of, and had not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a direct appeal of those proceedings. The government conceded that Proa-Tovar's waiver of his right to a direct appeal was not knowing and intelligent. The government argued, however, that he was nonetheless deportable because he showed no prejudice resulting from the violation. The district court denied Proa-Tovar's motion to dismiss and the jury found him guilty. 37 On appeal, this court held that when an alien is deprived of the right to direct judicial review of a deportation order but the deprivation does not result in any prejudice, evidence of that order need not be excluded in a later prosecution for illegal reentry. 975 F.2d at 594. 38 The court noted that it was well-established that an appellant must demonstrate prejudice when a collateral attack is made on an immigration order during Sec. 1326 prosecutions. Relying on United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987), the court extended this rule to an attack made on the ground that there has been a deprivation of the right to direct appeal of the administrative proceedings. 975 F.2d at 595 (emphasis added). 39 The en banc court specifically noted that the issue before it was narrow and straightforward. 975 F.2d at 594. The court decided that prejudice must be shown when an alien attacks a deportation order on the ground that he was deprived of the right to a direct appeal of the deportation hearing. The court in Proa-Tovar did not hold, as the government implies, that whenever there is a due process violation in a deportation hearing, no matter how egregious, the alien must always prove prejudice in order to preclude subsequent use of the deportation order in a Sec. 1326 case. Proa-Tovar addressed only the denial of the right to direct appeal.