United States v. Gonzalez-Valencia, No. 19-30222 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an indictment charging defendant of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The panel applied the majority's holding in its recently published opinion in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, —F.3d —, 2021 WL 345581 (9th Cir. 2021), which held that the jurisdiction of the immigration court vests upon the filing of the Notice to Appear (NTA), even one that does not at the time inform the alien of the time, date, and location of the hearing, and held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment. The panel also held that defendant failed to show that he can satisfy the section 1326(d) requirements for collaterally attacking the underlying removal order based simply on the NTA's lack of date and time information, standing alone. Therefore, he is foreclosed from making that argument on remand. The panel explained that defendant may collaterally attack the underlying order on remand on other grounds, but only if he can meet all the requirements of section1326(d). Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and remanded for further proceedings, in a case in which the district court held that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to enter the underlying removal order because the Notice to Appear (NTA) did not list the date and time of the removal hearing, and there was no evidence that the defendant later received the missing information. Applying United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, — F.3d —, 2021 WL 345581 (9th Cir. 2021)—which held that the jurisdiction of the immigration court vests upon the filing of the NTA, even one that does not at the time inform the alien of the time, date, and location of the hearing—the panel held: • the district court erred in dismissing the indictment. • the defendant failed to show that he can satisfy the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) requirements for collaterally attacking the underlying removal order based simply on the NTA’s lack of date and time information, standing alone; and he is thus foreclosed from making that argument on remand. UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-VALENCIA 3 • the defendant may collaterally attack the underlying order on remand on other grounds, but only if he can meet all the requirements of § 1326(d).
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 20, 2021.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 28, 2023.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.