Document: 481 U.S. 828 107 S.Ct. 2148 95 L.Ed.2d 772 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Jose MENDOZA-LOPEZ and Angel Landeros-Quinones. No. 85-2067. Argued March 3, 1987. Decided May 26, Syllabus Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326 provides that any alien who has been deported thereafter enters the United States is guilty of a felony. Respondents, Mexican nationals, were arrested after group hearing at which they purportedly waived their rights to apply for suspension deportation appeal. Subsequently, respondents again in this country indicted on charges violating 1326. However, District Court dismissed indictments, ruling could collaterally attack previous orders. The court found had not understood Immigration Judge's explanation deportation, concluded reliability proceedings totally undermined by fact made knowing intelligent waivers right remedy or Appeals affirmed, holding that, since material element offense prohibited was "lawful" order, principles fundamental fairness required pretrial review underlying determine whether received due process law. Because did fully understand proceedings, violation rendering order unlawful therefore proper basis against respondents. Held: 1. text, legislative history, background indicate Congress intend validity an be contestable prosecution. Section 1326's express language does suggest only may offense, thereby permitting collateral challenge. Moreover, enacting 1326, available it least one predecessor statute containing would have permitted challenges, but failed include While there was, time enactment, some case law suggesting attacks might permissible under certain circumstances, principle so unequivocally established must intended incorporate into Furthermore, Nationality Act sections—particularly 1105a—dealing with judicial orders, which, although directly applicable case, considered addressed various circumstances challenges orders arise without mentioning Pp. 833-837. 2. Due requires challenge use proceeding as criminal where effectively eliminates obtain review. 837-842. (a) Depriving disposition reviewed forum requires, minimum, subsequent result used establish offense. 837-839. (b) Respondents' fundamentally unfair violated process. By appeal judgment respondents, Judge completely deprived them proceeding. This deprivation precludes prove violations. 839—840. (c) Lewis v. States, 445 55, 100 915, 63 198 (1980), distinguishable from instant assumed opportunity decision forum, precisely denied here. 840-842. 781 F.2d 111 (CA 1985), affirmed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, POWELL, STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed dissenting opinion, WHITE O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. ----. SCALIA, Christopher J. Wright, petitioner. Kathy Goudy, Lincoln, Neb., Justice MARSHALL Court. 1 In we prosecuted illegal entry following assert invalidity order. 2 * Jose Mendoza-Lopez Landeros-Quinones, separate locations Nebraska, October 23, 1984, agents Naturalization Service. On 30, transported Denver, Colorado, held along 11 other persons, all whom were, like nationals.1 After hearing, ordered bused El Paso, Texas. They Paso November 1, 1984. Each received, his copy Form I-294, advised, both Spanish English, return permission constitute 3 December 12, once separately Nebraska. subsequently grand jury Nebraska provides: 4 "Any who— 5 "(1) excluded deported, 6 "(2) enters, attempts enter, . 7 "shall felony, upon conviction thereof, punished imprisonment more than two years, fine $1,000, both."2 Respondents moved dismiss ground fair hearings. contended Law inadequately informed counsel accepted unknowing deportation.3 9 ruled CR 85-L-06 (Feb. 28, 1985). It rejected claims adequately counsel. found, however, apparently deportation.4 appeal, finding "inconceivable lightly waive thus relief now claim entitlement, [sic] if apprised ramifications such choice." App. Pet. Cert. 23a. Holding "failure overcome these defendants' lack understanding about apparent listening tape recording, proceedings" "substantial justice done," indictments cases. Id., 26a. 10 Eighth Circuit (1985). Noting conflict among Circuits regarding defendant agreed those Courts deportation. 112. went state examine affirmed Court's conclusion "[b]ecause defendants unfair, obtained unlawfully. Thus, cannot stand forming defendants." 113.5 To resolve Circuits,6 granted certiorari. 479 811, 59, 93 19 (1986). We affirm. II 12 Spector, 343 169, 72 591, 96 L.Ed. 863 (1952), left open challenged prosecution prior crime.7 Today, squarely confront question context imposes penalty in, States. issue before us federal always accept conclusive even conducted conformity process.8 13 first address itself Some considering defined "lawful,"9 permits legality statute, suggests no limitation, stating simply "[a]ny deported," 1326(1), will felony 1326(2). 14 Nor sparse history contain evidence permit Before enacted, three statutory sections imposed penalties aliens reentered deportation: 180(a) (1946 ed.) (repealed 1952), provided "deported pursuance law" entered felony; 138 prostitution, procuring, similar immoral activity, misdemeanor subject different penalty; 137-7(b) ed., Supp. V) stated being subversive activity yet third, severe penalty.10 See H.R.Rep. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 219-220 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1952, 1653. 15 sections—§ 180(a)—express reentry deportation.11 nonetheless "in 180(a). And while enactment permitted, persuade 1326.12 16 limit 1105a outside enumerated exceptions, procedures prescribed 28 Code agency sole exclusive procedure for, final deportation." exceptions previously judicially determined, §§ 1252(d) (e), 1105a(a)(6), custody pursuant habeas corpus proceeding, 1105a(a)(9). These are ask vacate do so. properly predicate conviction. Yet text indicates mention also 1101(g) ("For purposes chapter shall ."); see Mendez INS, 563 956, 959 (CA9 1977).13 17 congressional intent sanction III A. 18 That end our inquiry. If envisions impose regardless how violative been, comport constitutional requirement process.14 Our cases determination administrative play critical role imposition sanction, meaningful Estep 327 114, 121-122, 66 423, 427, 90 567 (1946); Yakus 321 414, 444, 64 660, 677, 88 834 (1944); cf. McKart 395 185, 196-197, 89 1657, 1664-1665, 23 194 (1969).15 means very defects foreclose alternative obtaining conclusively offense.16 convert offense.17 B 20 Having review, remains occurred case. seek courts below respondents' failure explain 7. asked assume permitted. Tr. Oral Arg. 6-7. consequently legal conclusions took place amounted complete determination, enhance think did. judgments advise eligibility intelligent, Government not, therefore, rely reliable proof C 21 asserts answered objections scheme employed Lewis, state-court conviction, though uncounseled Sixth Fourteenth Amendment Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963), 1202(a)(1) VII Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets 1968, amended, U.S.C.App. 1202(a)(1), forbade person convicted receiving, possessing, transporting firearm. consider control issues raised define "class persons should disabled dealing possessing firearms," U.S., 67, S.Ct., 922, reference convictions, convictions resulted procedures, denial counsel, condemned unconstitutional.18 Lewis' challenge, manifested further violate equal protection component Process Clause Fifth Amendment. rejecting notion Constitution required, "new form attack" pointed availability secure conviction: "[I]t important note felon otherwise remove disability, firearm." Ibid. 22 unavailability effective here sets apart Lewis. procedural rendered direct unavailable What namely Persons charged crime entitled factual determinations based subjected scrutiny impartial officer. reject basic principle, today merely reaffirms it. eligible explained them, events support dismissal proper. 24 Affirmed. 25 Chief O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 26 I agree its provisions allow view exceptional prohibits using alien's imposing liability my view, fallen far short establishing reaching contrary conclusion, misreads 27 As acknowledges, claimed "the [deportation] Ante, 831; CR85-L-06, (Neb., Feb. judge told today, "not intelligent." 840. true sua sponte, knowingly court, treated subsidiary apprise ultimately disposing issue, stated: 29 "In light find inconceivable supra, 12. 30 narrow scope resolution demonstrated examination prejudice resulting manner conducted. Determining showing necessary successful substantial likelihood harmed comply C.F.R. 242.17," regulation governing notification 14. Yet, aside possible harm pursue relief, identify From findings most can said certainty determined proceedings. 31 affirming instead limited discussion sweeping assertion "[t]he respondents." 841. 32 desire inject suffered understandable. Without finding, articulated invalid because acceptance latter little foundation decision. 33 Recognizing number qualifying interpreted section providing 1254(a)(1), strict threshold criteria met Attorney General grant relief. INS Rios-Pineda, 471 105 2098, 85 452 (1985); Phinpathya, 464 183, 104 584, 78 401 (1984); Jong Ha Wang, 450 139, 101 1027, 67 123 (1981). Even requirements 1254(a)(1) satisfied, recognized "it discretion refuse suspend 446, 2100. decides matter discretion, he need inquire meets requirements. 449, 2101-2102. 34 deciding ability deportations, complied technical notice CFR 242.17 (1987). Given grace entrusted broad General, immigration judge's undertake efforts make knowledgeable privilege hardly compares identified unfair. Rose Clark, 478 570, 577, 106 3101, 3106, 92 460 (1986) (use coerced confession, adjudication biased judge), cited ante, 839, n. 17. engage extended colloquy concerning deportations neither "aborted trial process" nor presumptively prejudicial. 578, 6, 6. 35 Conspicuously absent arguments suggestion improper erroneously applied determining deportable. fact, several below, mentioned expended considerable effort ensure hearing. For example, noted commenced instructing "that raise hands misunderstandings eliminate confusion." indicated arrangement. represented list free services them. At wished deportable, ruling, reserve decision, each ruling. Under say dictates Clause.* hold erred concluding brought 36 37 When specifically warned reenter illegally. Two months later, apprehended illegal, lawfully originally Clause.1 lawfulness original irrelevant dissent, share relevant constitutionally 38 clear deportees—irrespective deportations—to (1980) (Congress felons—irrespective convictions—to deal possess firearms).2 distinguish foreclosed "effective review" felons firearms. 837-840, relied 64, 920, 921-922. But, implication, 837, holds invariably forbids reliance outcome unreviewable (1969) (interpreting orders); (1946) (same); (1944) forbid earlier orders). 39 adoption seems me wrong. illustrate point out many examples, imagine State establishes (after investigation full judicial-type hearings) periodically publishes unethical businesses. Further State, having discovered listed businesses bribing agency's investigators avoid future listing, passes making business bribe investigators. punish violations unless either makes listing decisions reviewable defend themselves way unlawful. 40 believed relevant, still true, notes, judgments," 23a, affected 839. There world difference, between assure parties grounds forgo "considered" fashion. Since knowledge agencies rarely assurance, unbounded unexplained conception "effective" 17, leads peculiar almost conclusion. 41 unconsidered ignores possibility notwithstanding appealed unlawfully secured, cf., e.g., 1977), deportations. suits statutes, see, 1101(g), negative answer necessary, entirely unexplained, holding.3 42 reasons, unlawful, reverse Appeals. raised, regarding, propriety Compare Barraza-Leon, 575 218, 1978), Calles-Pineda, 627 976, 977 1980). excepts consent reapply admission consent. 1326(2)(A), (B). contend exception applies Suspension discretionary deportable physically present seven during good moral character, whose would, extreme hardship spouse, parent, child, citizen admitted permanent residence. 1254(a). enables adjust status application deportation; wrong respondent discussing remedy; much suspension; Landeros-Quinones concept further. contrasted cursory confusing treatment extensive inquiry when sought voluntary departure lieu departure. 20a-22a. One dissented never asserted F.2d, 113-114. Compare, Nicholas-Armenta, 763 1089, 1090 Bowles, 331 742, 749-750 (CA3 1964) (collateral proceeding), Petrella, 707 (CA2), cert. denied, 921, 289, 265 (1983), Gonzalez-Parra, 438 694, 697 (CA5), 402 1010, 91 2196, 433 (1971), Arriaga-Ramirez 325 857, 859 (CA10 1963) barred prosecutions 1326); Rosal-Aguilar, 652 721, 723 (CA7 1981) (trial de novo prerequisite valid according law"); Petrella (1983) (WHITE, certiorari) (internal quotation omitted). outstanding timely documents He vagueness prevailed void vagueness. 171-172, 593. argument unconstitutional afforded trying charge pass declined "was appellee briefed argued here." 172, "It tried seeks tried. opinion. it." 172-173, 594. Jackson, Frankfurter impermissibly allowed "Having dispensed safeguards conduct him civil turn around order." 179, 597. resolved potential problem Spector when, 1961, enacted explicitly 1252(e) willfully failing refusing faith travel petition certiorari, Appeals' See, Gasca-Kraft, 522 149, 152 1975) ("A lawful deportation"); 749 ("When word 'deported' meant 'deported law' "). Circuit, "a 'lawful' deportation" "agree[d] rationale." appear then continued: "Allowing insures defendant. Accordingly, conclude accorded hearing." 112-113. punishment years both; solely up years; five years. purpose same returned S.Rep. 1515, 81st 655, 656 (1950). clear—their pertinent respects reproduced "existing House Report included (1952). ex rel. Beck Neelly, 202 221, 222, 224 (CA7) (declining decide 345 997, 73 1139, 97 1403 (1953); Steffner Carmichael, 183 19, (CA5) later impermissible "gross miscarriage justice" former proceeding; valid), 340 829, 71 609 (1950); Daskaloff Zurbrick, 103 579, 580-581 (CA6 1939) (alien prostitute detained warrant 155 1952) through corpus). Contrary SCALIA'S suggestion, ----, Mendez, view. oral position "absolutely limitations enforcement 1326." 10. safeguard, troubling. 597, (1952) (Jackson, dissenting). (1944), motivated exigencies wartime, dealt regulations rather legitimacy adjudicative procedure, and, significantly, turned adequate another forum. question. reach here, legitimated practice instance denied. A commentators expressed fairness, Comment, Collateral Attacks Deportation Orders Prosecutions Illegal Reentry, 48 U.Chi.L.Rev. 83, 90-91, 102-103 (1981) (where proper); Note, Collaterally Attacking Criminal Reentry 276 56 Notre Dame Law. 686-688 (fundamental consequences). decline stage enumerate errors functionally deprive requiring recognized, "some necessarily render unfair," judge); Lundy, 455 509, 543-544, 102 1198, 1216-1217, 379 (1982) (STEVENS, dissenting) (mob violence, perjured testimony). less stringent demanded trial, analogous abuses operate, deny determinations. parenthetically create delay recognize instituted reentry. Cf. Burgett Texas, 389 109, 115, 258, 262, 319 (1967); Baldasar Illinois, 446 226-227, 1585, 1587-1588, 169 (MARSHALL, concurring) (court increased term imprisonment); Tucker, 404 443, 589, 592 (1972) sentence unrelated offense); 1325, constitutes misdemeanor. serves entry, steeper individuals 1325 deported. attacked request rights. Government, conceded 13-14. litigated subsumed precise presented seriously Indeed, chosen albeit suggested Clause. holdings, 7, 6; Brief 5-6, 5; 6-7, appropriate Rule 21.1(a) ("Only questions set forth fairly therein Court"). also, Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 421, 448-449, 32, 1207, 1222, 94 434 arguing contrary, THE CHIEF JUSTICE observes Appeals, point. observations dispose consideration unchallenged displace 21.1(a). dissent holdings does. But holdings. Finally, correctness "subsumed review." 846, *. disagree. formulated "Whether reentering proceeding?" I. fail within successful. points, occurred. involved than, 838, 15, outcomes proceedings—even review—in Whether so, believe presents circumstances. event, does, show nothing criminal. avenues theoretically available, respondents—not relief—could reasonably expected plainly argument, advanced unreasonable defect lacked assistance id., 73, 925 (BRENNAN,

Category: 1