United States v. Mendias-Chavez , 89 F. App'x 184 ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 18 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 03-3172
(D.C. No. 02-3171-JTM)
JOSE CIPRIANO MENDIAS- (D. Kan.)
CHAVEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Jose Cipriano Mendias-Chavez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. We conclude
that our recent en banc decision in United States v. Aguirre-Tello, 353 F.3d 1199(10th Cir. 2004), precludes relief for Mendias-Chavez and AFFIRM.
On June 13, 2000, Jose Cipriano Mendias-Chavez pleaded guilty to illegal
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
re-entry to the United States by a deported aggravated felon pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). On December 7, 2000, Mendias-Chavez was sentenced to
a term of sixty months imprisonment, three years supervised release, and a $100
special assessment. We affirmed Mendias-Chavez’ sentence on June 5, 2001.
Twenty days later, on June 25, 2001, the Supreme Court held that certain aliens
remained eligible for a discretionary waiver of deportation. See INS v. St. Cyr,
533 U.S. 289, 326 (2001).
Mendias-Chavez, who had not been informed of his eligibility for a
discretionary waiver prior to his deportation, filed a § 2255 motion in federal
district court seeking an order vacating or setting aside his sentence pursuant to
St. Cyr. There, he argued for the first time that his initial deportation, which
followed his conviction for an aggravated felony, violated his due process rights.
Relying on Fourth Circuit precedent, the district court denied the § 2255 motion,
holding that Mendias-Chavez failed to establish a due process violation that
would sustain a collateral attack on his deportation. United States v. Mendias-
Chavez, No. 00-10093-01-JTM, slip op. at 3 (D. Kan. May 27, 2003); see United
States v. Wilson, 316 F.3d 506, 515 (4th Cir. 2003). Mendias-Chavez then sought
a certificate of appealability from this court, which we granted as to the following
question: Whether the Immigration Judge’s failure to inform Mendias-Chavez of
his eligibility for a discretionary waiver of deportation rendered his underlying
-2-
deportation order fundamentally unfair such that his § 1326 conviction is
defective.
First, the government contends that Mendias-Chavez’ argument under
St.Cyr is procedurally barred because he failed to raise a due process challenge to
his § 1326 conviction on direct appeal. Mendias-Chavez maintains that St. Cyr
relief was not available at the time of his direct appeal. The Tenth Circuit has not
yet had the opportunity to explore whether St. Cyr applies retroactively.
However, we need not and do not address this question, “because the case may be
more easily and succinctly affirmed on the merits.” Miller v. Mullin, 354 F.3d
1288, 1297 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). Indeed, our recently published
decision in Aguirre-Tello, decided shortly after this court granted a certificate of
appealability to Mendias-Chavez, clearly bars relief for Mendias-Chavez in this
matter.
“When a previous deportation proceeding is attacked on constitutional
grounds, we are presented with a mixed question of law and fact, which we
review de novo.” Aguirre-Tello, 353 F.3d at 1204. Section 1326(d) permits an
alien to collaterally challenge the validity of his underlying deportation order if
three conditions are met: “(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies
that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation
proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the
-3-
opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally
unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (emphasis added). Mendias-Chavez thus has the
burden of showing that the underlying deportation hearing was fundamentally
unfair. Aguirre-Tello, 353 F.3d at 1204. In order to establish fundamental
unfairness, “a defendant must show that (1) his due process rights were violated
. . . and (2) he suffered prejudice as a result of the defects.” Wilson, 316 F.3d at
510; see Aguirre-Tello, 353 F.3d at 1200–01.
Mendias-Chavez contends that the Immigration Judge’s failure to advise
him of his right to discretionary relief from deportation deprived him of his right
to due process, thereby rendering his deportation fundamentally unfair. However,
we rejected this exact argument in Aguirre-Tello, where we held that a deportable
alien does not have a constitutional right to be informed of discretionary relief
that might be available to him. 353 F.3d at 1204. Because Mendias-Chavez’
argument is precluded by our en banc decision in Aguirre-Tello, we conclude that
his conviction for illegal re-entry of a deported felon was not predicated on an
unconstitutional deportation and AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-