Opinion ID: 175914
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Waiver of Appeal

Text: [3] We must first determine whether Ramos validly waived his right to appeal by signing the Stipulated Removal form, which would preclude this collateral challenge to his removal. “[A]n alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000). However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), a defendant may collaterally attack the underlying removal order by showing first, exhaustion of “any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order;” second, that “the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review;” and third, that “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). An underlying removal order is fundamentally unfair if an alien’s “due process rights were violated by defects in the underlying deportation proceeding,” and if “he suffered prejudice as a result of the defects.” United States v. Pallares-Galan, 359 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). UNITED STATES v. RAMOS 16267 A valid waiver of the right to appeal “must be both ‘considered and intelligent.’ ” Arrieta, 224 F.3d at 1079 (quoting United States v. Estrada-Torres, 179 F.3d 776, 780-81 (9th Cir. 1999)). The government bears the burden of proving valid waiver in a collateral attack of the underlying removal proceedings. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 F.3d at 753. We “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver,” and do “not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “the due process inquiry focuses on whether [the defendant] personally made a ‘considered and intelligent’ waiver of his appeal.” United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1049 n.8 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original). The district court thus erred in shifting the burden of proving valid waiver of the right to appeal to Ramos. We conclude that Ramos’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid for several independent reasons. As a threshold matter, however, we note that the district court erred in concluding that the validity of Ramos’s stipulated removal order was controlled by our decision in Galicia-Gonzalez, 997 F.2d 602. In Galicia-Gonzalez, we held that an alien petitioner validly conceded deportability and waived his rights to a hearing and appeal through a stipulated agreement with the government. However, unlike the petitioner in Galicia-Gonzalez, who had received a full explanation of a stipulated removal agreement from his counsel, and who had entered into the stipulation through counsel, Ramos lacked the benefit of legal representation. [4] Ramos’s waiver of appeal and of the due process rights specified in the Stipulated Removal form was not “considered or intelligent” because he did not receive a competent Spanish language translation of his right to appeal when he signed the form. “It is long-settled that a competent translation is fundamental to a full and fair hearing. If an alien does not speak English, deportation proceedings must be translated into a 16268 UNITED STATES v. RAMOS language the alien understands.” Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We cannot conclude that waiver of rights, including the right to appeal, was “considered or intelligent” without evidence that a detainee was “able to understand the questions posed to him” when put to the choice of foregoing all rights or remaining in detention until he could appear before an IJ. Id. The government argues that Ramos’s waiver was “considered and intelligent” because Ramos failed to give any indication to the deportation officer that he did not understand or appreciate what he was signing. However, a deportation officer’s “feeling” that a detainee understood her broken attempts to speak Spanish is insufficient to meet the government’s burden. See Lopez-Vasquez, 1 F.3d at 754. Without the benefit of “the services of an interpreter . . . [whose] capacity should be unquestioned,” Perez-Lastor, 208 F.3d at 778, Ramos signed away his right to appeal, to appear before an IJ, and to be represented by counsel in an individual meeting with a deportation officer who testified that she is not fluent in Spanish. Given these circumstances, the government failed to meet its burden of proving that Ramos’s waiver was “considered and intelligent.” [5] Moreover, we cannot conclude that Ramos’s waiver was “considered and intelligent” because the government has not established by “clear and convincing evidence” that he received adequate advisement of the consequences of his waiver of appeal. Pallares-Galan, 359 F.3d at 1097. Here, an uncounseled Spanish-speaking alien detainee did not have the opportunity to appear before an IJ and was only advised of his right to appeal by an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer. Even where an alien has the opportunity for his case to be reviewed “by an individual who is intimately familiar with immigration laws—as IJs no doubt are,” Moran-Enriquez v. INS, 884 F.2d 420, 423 (9th Cir. 1989), we have found an invalid waiver. An IJ’s failure to explore waiver adequately with the petitioner “preclude[s] a purported UNITED STATES v. RAMOS 16269 waiver from being ‘considered and intelligent.’ ” PallaresGalan, 359 F.3d at 1097. The “requirement that the IJ inform an alien of his or her ability to apply for relief from removal is mandatory, and failure to so inform the alien of his or her eligibility for relief from removal is a denial of due process that invalidates the underlying deportation proceeding.” Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1050 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 2001) (concluding same); Arrieta, 224 F.3d at 1079 (same); cf. United States v. Ahumada-Aguilar, 295 F.3d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that waiver is not “considered and intelligent” where an IJ provides an erroneous interpretation of potential relief from deportation). [6] Here, Ramos was not represented and never had the benefit of appearing before an IJ, who, we presume, would have “adequately conveyed both the alien’s appeal options and the finality associated with waiving appeal.” In re Rodriguez-Diaz, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1320, 1323 (BIA 2000); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5).4 Nor at any time in the stipulated removal proceedings did Ramos receive the benefit of a review of his potential eligibility for relief. Ramos thus lacked the benefit of counsel or a hearing before the IJ in navigating the “labyrinth” of our immigration laws, which we have “termed ‘second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.’ ” Castro-O’Ryan v. INS, 847 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Ramos failed to receive the benefit of procedural safeguards necessary to ensure a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we conclude that his waiver of appeal was invalid. See UbaldoFigueroa, 364 F.3d at 1049 (“An alien can not make a valid 4 We therefore find unpersuasive the government’s argument that Ramos’s waiver of appeal is “constitutionally indistinguishable” from that in United States v. Estrada-Torres, 179 F.3d 776, 781 (9th Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). In that case, an IJ discussed the right to appeal the deportation order with the defendant and specifically and individually asked whether he wanted to appeal his deportation order. 16270 UNITED STATES v. RAMOS waiver of his right to appeal a removal order if an IJ does not expressly and personally inform the alien that he has the right to appeal.”). Accordingly, we hold that Ramos’s waiver of his right to appeal the underlying removal order was procedurally defective and deprived him of the opportunity for meaningful judicial review. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(d)(1)-(2). B. Validity of Waiver of Due Process Right to Counsel Ramos also argues that his stipulated removal proceedings deprived him of his right to counsel in violation of due process. We agree. [7] “Although there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in an immigration hearing, Congress has recognized it among the rights stemming from the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process that adhere to individuals that are the subject of removal proceedings.” Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “ ‘Although IJs may not be required to undertake Herculean efforts to afford the right to counsel, at a minimum they must [(1)] inquire whether the petitioner wishes counsel, [(2)] determine a reasonable period for obtaining counsel, and [(3)] assess whether any waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary.’ ” Ram v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2008) (alterations in original) (quoting Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2005)). [8] Neither 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d) nor 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 requires a waiver of the Fifth Amendment right to be represented by counsel in stipulated removal proceedings. The Stipulated Removal form employed by DHS officials at Eloy, however, does effect a waiver of the right to counsel. The government argues that Ramos’s waiver of the right to counsel was valid because he signed a written waiver later reviewed by the IJ, unlike the petitioners in Ram and Tawadrus. In Ram, we concluded that an alien did not validly waive his right to counsel because, at the hearing, the IJ failed UNITED STATES v. RAMOS 16271 to adequately assess whether waiver by Ram was knowing and voluntary. Ram, 528 F.3d at 1241-42. In Tawadrus, we concluded that the waiver of the right to counsel was invalid because the IJ failed to inform Tawadrus of the right to counsel when his original attorney withdrew. Tawadrus, 364 F.3d at 1103. We held that the IJ’s failure even to inquire as to whether Tawadrus wanted an attorney present was an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process. Id. at 1105. The government’s attempt to distinguish Ram and Tawadrus on the basis that in those cases, the waiver was verbal, and, here, Ramos signed the waiver misses the point. The key question is whether the waiver is “knowing and voluntary,” not whether it is verbal or written. Moreover, alien petitioners in both Ram and Tawadrus appeared before an IJ, who was both charged with and able to assess whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Ramos did not receive the benefit of appearing before an IJ, and “ ‘at no time did [an IJ] direct any questions to [Ramos] concerning the implications of’ proceeding without an attorney.” Ram, 529 F.3d at 1242 (quoting Tawadrus, 364 F.3d at 1104) (first alteration in original). Furthermore, Ramos did not receive a competent explanation of his rights in a language he could understand. See PerezLastor, 208 F.3d at 778. Given these circumstances, Ramos’s signature on the Stipulated Removal form does not establish that his waiver was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we conclude that Ramos’s waiver of counsel was invalid and a violation of his due process right to counsel. C. Regulatory Violation [9] We also conclude that the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by failing to determine whether his waiver was “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent,” as required by the regulation, and that his underlying removal is thus invalid. Id. “It is a well-known maxim that agencies must comply with their own regulations.” Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 743 F.2d 1307, 1310 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). 16272 UNITED STATES v. RAMOS When determining whether an agency’s violation of a regulation invalidates an underlying deportation, we must first determine whether the regulation itself “serve[s] a purpose of benefit to the alien.” United States v. Rangel-Gonzales, 617 F.2d 529, 530 (9th Cir. 1980). If the regulation serves a purpose beneficial to the alien, “the violation invalidates the deportation ‘only if the violation prejudiced the interests of the alien which were protected by the regulation.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Calderon-Medina, 591 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir. 1979)). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) clearly serves to benefit aliens ordered deported, excluded, or removed pursuant to the regulation. As the agency’s own regulatory commentary states, the requirement that an IJ determine that an alien’s waiver of his right to a hearing before an IJ was “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” “safeguards against an imprudent waiver of a formal adjudication on the part of an unrepresented alien. . . . If an immigration judge is confronted with a stipulated request raising due process concerns, he or she may examine that request in the context of a hearing.” Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens, 62 Fed. Reg. at 10,312. The government argues that the Stipulated Removal form, which stated “I submit this request for removal voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently,” was a sufficient basis from which the IJ could conclude that Ramos validly waived his rights. However, the circumstances of Ramos’s stipulated removal proceedings at Eloy, in which he was unrepresented by counsel, show otherwise. Without any independent inquiry of the petitioner, and depending solely on information provided by DHS, the IJ concluded that Ramos had “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” waived his due process rights. As we have noted, “shortcuts frequently turn out to be mistakes.” Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, Ramos’s waiver of rights, including his right to a hearing, was not knowing and intelligent. The govUNITED STATES v. RAMOS 16273 ernment failed to give Ramos a competent explanation of the Stipulated Removal form in a language he could understand. See Perez-Lastor, 208 F.3d at 778. The government also failed to advise Ramos adequately as to his rights to appeal and to counsel and never advised him as to any potential ground for relief from deportation. We therefore conclude that DHS and the IJ failed to comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). D. Prejudice [10] To prevail on a motion to dismiss an indictment on the basis of an alleged due process defect in an underlying deportation proceeding, a defendant must not only establish that the defects in the deportation proceeding violated his due process rights, but also show that he suffered prejudice as a result of those defects. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1048. A defendant need not conclusively demonstrate that he or she would have received relief to show prejudice, but must show only that there were “plausible grounds for relief.” United States v. Gonzales-Valerio, 342 F.3d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir. 2003). If the defendant is “barred from receiving relief, his claim is not ‘plausible.’ ” Id. at 1056. A defendant must also show prejudice to invalidate the underlying deportation where he or she alleges the agency’s regulatory violation. RangelGonzales, 617 F.2d at 530. [11] Although we conclude that DHS violated Ramos’s right to due process in the underlying deportation, and that the agency violated its own regulation in doing so, we conclude that he suffered no prejudice as a result. To establish prejudice, Ramos contends only that he would have qualified for relief under INA § 212(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), and presents no other plausible grounds for relief. However, Ramos is statutorily ineligible for this relief. INA § 212(h) does not provide relief for aliens removed for illegal presence in the United States without admission or parole in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), the ground upon which Ramos was 16274 UNITED STATES v. RAMOS ultimately removed. Whether Ramos would be eligible for a waiver of removal on the ground of his controlled substance violation is therefore immaterial. Accordingly, we conclude that Ramos was not prejudiced as a result of the due process or regulatory violations in the underlying stipulated removal proceedings, and affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment on that basis.