Opinion ID: 30182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Collateral Attack on Deportation Order

Text: 8 In United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, the Supreme Court held that an alien who is being prosecuted under § 1326 can, in some circumstances, assert a challenge to an underlying deportation order. 481 U.S. 828, 839, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987). This Court, interpreting Mendoza-Lopez, has formulated a three part test that must be met by an alien seeking to challenge a prior deportation order in a prosecution for illegal reentry under § 1326: the alien must establish that 1) the prior hearing was fundamentally unfair; 2) the hearing effectively eliminated the right of the alien to challenge the hearing by means of judicial review of the order; and 3) the procedural deficiencies caused the alien actual prejudice. See United States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 227 F.3d 476, 483 (5th Cir.2000); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (1999). If the alien fails to establish one prong of the three part test, the Court need not consider the others. See United States v. Encarnacion-Galvez, 964 F.2d 402, 406 (5th Cir.1992). In this case, Mendoza-Mata failed to satisfy the actual prejudice requirement. 9 A showing of prejudice means that there was a reasonable likelihood that but for the errors complained of the defendant would not have been deported. See United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d 651, 658 (5th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). In short, [i]f the defendant was legally deportable and, despite the INS's errors, the proceeding `could not have yielded a different result,' the deportation is valid for purposes of section 1326. Id. 10 Mendoza-Mata argues that but for the BIA's failure to afford him the right to apply for discretionary relief, there existed a reasonable likelihood that he would have been granted discretionary relief, thus barring his deportation. Prior to IIRIRA and AEDPA, the Attorney General under then § 212(c) had discretion to waive deportation in cases where a convicted alien demonstrated that he had a lawful unrelinquished domicile in the United States for at least seven years. Mendoza-Mata asserts that he satisfies the seven-year domicile requirement based on his legal residence in the United States in conjunction with that of his parents, who were legal resident aliens when he resided with them as a minor. 4 Mendoza-Mata further asserts that his familial ties and long presence in the United States further support the likelihood that he would have obtained discretionary relief. Lastly, Mendoza-Mata relies on the Supreme Court's statement in St. Cyr which noted that a substantial percentage of discretionary relief applications had been granted in the past. 533 U.S. at 296, 121 S.Ct. 2271. Mendoza-Mata's arguments are unavailing. 11 As the Government points out, Mendoza-Mata's extensive criminal record and evidence of immoral character would have likely precluded him from obtaining discretionary relief. The Government contends that these factors would weigh heavily against Mendoza-Mata's character references and evidence of familial ties in the United States. We agree. The record contains abundant evidence that demonstrates that Mendoza-Mata would likely not have received discretionary relief. 12 Apart from the 1994 cocaine conviction for which Mendoza-Mata was deported, the Pre Sentence Report (PSR) reveals that he was convicted of criminal trespass and indecent exposure, both of which involved sexually deviant conduct, including masturbating in public. 5 The PSR further reveals that Mendoza-Mata also had charges of child recklessness and criminal mischief brought against him for leaving his child in a car unattended for an hour in 105 degree temperature and breaking into an apartment to have sex with a female. 6 Lastly, the PSR reveals that Mendoza-Mata pled guilty to theft and driving with a suspended license. 7 Although Mendoza-Mata's family and friends submitted character letters in support of discretionary relief, given his criminal history, it is highly unlikely that the Attorney General would have granted him relief. 8 In fact, the district court noted that given [Mendoza-Mata's] criminal history, I certainly understand why the immigration authorities would revoke his legal status. 13 Although Mendoza-Mata does not have to establish with certainty that he would have been granted discretionary relief, Mendoza-Mata has failed to show that there was a reasonable likelihood that he would have been granted such relief. Thus, he has failed to show that he was actually prejudiced by the denial of a discretionary hearing. Because the defendant has failed to successfully collaterally attack the underlying deportation order, the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.