Court Opinion

ID: 9381499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 00:00:37.682971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.932359
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50613        Document: 00516685502             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-50613                                   FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                            March 22, 2023
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jose Armando Tavarez-Palma,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-33-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Armando Tavarez-Palma, a Mexican national, pleaded guilty to
   illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (his third illegal-reentry
   conviction), and was sentenced to, inter alia, 16-months’ imprisonment. For
   the first time on appeal, Tavarez contends his conviction is invalid because

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50613      Document: 00516685502           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/22/2023

                                     No. 22-50613

   the prior removal on which it was based—his April 2003 in absentia removal
   order—was obtained in violation of his due-process rights. He asserts he:
   was denied his due-process right to be present and heard at the April 2003
   removal hearing; and could not have appeared at the hearing because he was
   in juvenile detention from October 2001 until July 2003.
          Tavarez (as he concedes) did not raise his collateral challenge to his
   prior removal in district court. Therefore, review is only for plain error. E.g.,
   United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that
   standard, Tavarez must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error,
   rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial
   rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that
   showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but
   generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or
   public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.
          There are multiple conditions an alien must satisfy prior to collaterally
   challenging a prior removal in a criminal proceeding for illegal reentry. See 8
   U.S.C. § 1326(d). Our precedent is clear that the alien must show actual
   prejudice. E.g., United States v. Ramirez-Cortinas, 945 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir.
   2019). To show prejudice under § 1326(d), the alien must show that “there
   was a reasonable likelihood that but for the errors complained of the
   defendant would not have been [removed]”. Id. at 292 (emphasis in original)
   (citation omitted). “If despite the [alleged] errors, the proceeding could not
   have yielded a different result, the deportation is valid for purposes of section
   1326.” Id. (alternation in original) (citation omitted).
          For the reasons that follow, Tavarez fails to demonstrate the requisite
   actual prejudice. As a result, we decline to address the parties’ remaining
   assertions. E.g., United States v. Mendoza–Mata, 322 F.3d 829, 832 (5th Cir.

                                          2
Case: 22-50613      Document: 00516685502          Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/22/2023

                                    No. 22-50613

   2003) (explaining where alien failed to satisfy “actual prejudice”
   requirement, the court need not consider other conditions).
          In support of his claim that, but for the due-process errors in his
   removal proceedings, he would not have been removed, Tavarez maintains
   he was removed based on invalid statutory grounds: he contends he was
   ordered removed based on his 2001 conviction for a controlled-substance
   offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i); and, because the case resulted in
   a juvenile adjudication, it did not comprise a “conviction” subjecting him to
   removal under that statute.
          His assertion is factually frivolous. Tavarez was not removed because
   of his juvenile conviction; rather, he was charged with removability, and
   found removable, as an alien who entered the United States without
   inspection or parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Tavarez offers no
   basis, and points to no record evidence, that would dispute that charge or
   support a claim for relief from removal. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
   224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (explaining arguments must be briefed to be
   preserved); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding
   counseled briefs are not entitled to liberal construction of pleadings). He
   therefore fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error for his claim that,
   but for the complained of due-process violation, he would not have been
   removed. E.g., Ramirez-Cortinas, 945 F.3d at 292–93.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3