United States v. Omar Silva , 931 F.3d 330 ( 2019 )

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR VILLARREAL SILVA, a/k/a Nolberto Ruiz Trinidad, a/k/a Nolberto
Trinidad Ruiz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00125-MHL-1)
Argued: May 9, 2019 Decided: July 25, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge
Keenan and Judge Quattlebaum joined.
ARGUED: Joseph Stephen Camden, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States
Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
Omar Villarreal Silva, a citizen of Mexico, was, during a traffic arrest on August
6, 2017, found in the United States after having been removed following conviction for a
felony. A grand jury indicted him for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), which
punishes “any alien who has been . . . removed . . . and thereafter . . . is at any time found
in the United States” and which enhances the penalty when the “removal was subsequent
to a conviction for . . . a felony.”
Villarreal filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, challenging the validity of his
underlying removal, which was an element of the § 1326 offense. He contended that
during the removal, which was an expedited removal conducted under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), he was denied procedural due process and therefore that the removal
“was fundamentally unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). The district court observed that
neither party had addressed the “relevance of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(D)” — which
provides that in a § 1326 prosecution, the court “shall not have jurisdiction to hear any
claim attacking the validity of an order of removal” issued under the expedited removal
provision — and requested briefing on the constitutionality of that section insofar as it
prohibited any challenge to the validity of the removal element of Villarreal’s § 1326
prosecution. Following briefing, the court held that § 1225(b)(1)(D) was unconstitutional
and that Villarreal was entitled to a due process review of his prior expedited removal
order. On conducting that review, however, the court held that Villarreal failed to
establish that the removal was fundamentally unfair and accordingly denied his motion to
dismiss.
2
Reserving review of the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, Villarreal
pleaded guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 21 months’ imprisonment.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I
Villarreal has a long record of entering the United States illegally and committing
crimes while in the United States. On March 4 and March 14, 1998, and on March 18,
July 26, and July 28, 1999, Villarreal was apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents,
processed as a “voluntary return” rather than placed in removal proceedings or
prosecuted, and returned to Mexico. In addition to those five illegal entries, Villarreal
entered illegally at sometime thereafter for a sixth time, as he was arrested and
subsequently convicted on August 19, 2000, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
discharging a firearm inside city limits. Several months later, he was again arrested in
Winston-Salem for robbery with a dangerous weapon and resisting an officer and, on
February 10, 2001, was convicted of resisting arrest. On January 16, 2008, he was
convicted in Chesterfield County, Virginia, for driving while intoxicated and identity
theft. In 2009 and 2014, for a second and third time, he was again convicted in
Chesterfield County for driving while intoxicated. Following the third DWI conviction,
Villarreal was removed to Mexico on September 11, 2014.
Two months later, on November 20, 2014, Villarreal arrived at the border for
admission to the United States and presented another person’s passport card, falsely
claimed that the card was his, and falsely claimed that he was a United States citizen.
3
When the immigration officer discovered the fraud, Villarreal admitted that the passport
card was not his. This time, rather than permitting Villarreal to depart voluntarily, the
officer issued an expedited order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) and
referred Villarreal to the U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecution. Villarreal was charged
with and convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (punishing aliens for attempted entry
after removal) and 18 U.S.C. § 1544 (punishing aliens for attempted entry with another’s
passport). After serving 15 months’ imprisonment, he was removed to Mexico on
December 23, 2015.
For an eighth time, Villarreal illegally entered the United States at sometime after
2015 and, on August 6, 2017, was arrested in Chesterfield County, Virginia, for DWI,
obstruction of justice, and driving on a suspended or revoked license. This arrest led to
Villarreal’s prosecution in this case for his violation of § 1326(a), (b)(1). For the removal
element of this violation, the government relied on Villarreal’s November 20, 2014
expedited removal.
Villarreal filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, asserting the defense afforded
under § 1326(d) that his 2014 expedited removal “was fundamentally unfair” and
therefore could not be used to satisfy the removal element of his § 1326 offense. The
district court invited the parties to consider § 1225(b)(1)(D), which provides that “[i]n
any action brought against an alien under . . . section 1326 of this title, the court shall not
have jurisdiction to hear any claim attacking the validity of an order of removal entered
under subparagraph (A)(i) [of § 1225(b)(1), the expedited removal provision].”
(Emphasis added). After additional briefing, the court concluded, relying on United
4
States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), that § 1225(b)(1)(D) was unconstitutional
insofar as it denied Villarreal the right to challenge his 2014 expedited removal, which
was an element of his § 1326 offense. The court then considered Villarreal’s challenge
on the merits and, applying § 1326(d)(3), concluded that the 2014 removal order was not
fundamentally unfair because the alleged due process violation on which Villarreal relied
did not result in any prejudice.
Villarreal then pleaded guilty, retaining the right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss, and the district court sentenced him to 21 months’
imprisonment.
From the judgment against him dated August 27, 2018, Villarreal filed this appeal,
challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.
II
Villarreal contends that the removal order of November 20, 2014, that formed the
basis for his § 1326 conviction was “fundamentally unfair” and thus invalid under
§ 1326(d). He argues, therefore, that his conviction must be set aside. Section 1326
provides that “any alien who . . . has been . . . removed . . . and thereafter . . . is at any
time found in the United States . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . . or both.” 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) (emphasis added). Villarreal asserts that in issuing the expedited
removal order under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), the immigration officer failed to provide him
with procedural due process.
5
To address Villarreal’s argument, the district court found it necessary to consider
§ 1225(b)(1)(D), which strips courts of jurisdiction in proceedings under § 1326 “to hear
any claim attacking the validity of an order of removal” entered under the expedited
removal provision of § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). After receiving additional briefing, the court
held that § 1225(b)(1)(D) was unconstitutional under United States v. Mendoza-Lopez,
481 U.S. 828 (1987), and then considered and rejected Villarreal’s attack on the validity
of his expedited removal order.
Because § 1225(b)(1)(D) purports to strip both the district court and this court of
jurisdiction to hear Villarreal’s attack on the 2014 expedited removal order entered under
§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), we too conclude that we cannot consider Villarreal’s arguments
before determining the effect of § 1225(b)(1)(D). See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1988).
Section 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) requires immigration officers to issue an expedited order
of removal to any alien arriving at the border of the United States if the officer
determines that the alien is inadmissible because he was seeking admission by fraudulent
or willful misrepresentations or without valid entry and travel documents. The order
must be entered “without further hearing or review,” unless the alien is seeking asylum or
indicates a fear of persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). Because Villarreal met the
criteria for expedited removal, the immigration officer ordered him removed without
further hearing or review.
When focusing on § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) alone, it is well established that Congress is
constitutionally authorized to provide for expedited removals without review. As the
6
Supreme Court has explained, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States
requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his admission, for the
power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459
U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (citing United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542
(1950), and Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659–60 (1892)).
Accordingly, “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far
as an alien denied entry is concerned.” Knauff, 338 U.S at 544; see also Zadvyas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).
But the issue in this case is not whether expedited removal is constitutional but
whether an alien can challenge an expedited removal when the government later uses that
removal as a basis for a criminal prosecution under § 1326. Even though the removal
thus becomes an element of the § 1326 criminal offense, § 1225(b)(1)(D) provides that a
court in a § 1326 prosecution lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim attacking the validity of
the removal when it was an expedited removal.
We conclude that when an expedited removal is alleged to be an element in a
criminal prosecution, the defendant in that prosecution must, as a matter of due process,
be able to challenge the element — i.e., to contend that the removal was invalid — if he
did not have a prior opportunity to do so. Because the rules attendant to expedited
removal preclude review of the removal order, the defendant in a § 1326 prosecution
premised on an expedited removal order under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) must be given the
opportunity in the § 1326 prosecution to challenge the validity of that order. And
because § 1225(b)(1)(D) strips courts in § 1326 prosecutions from hearing a defendant’s
7
challenge to an expedited removal element, we conclude that this jurisdiction-stripping
provision is unconstitutional. See Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 837–39.
In Mendoza-Lopez, the Supreme Court concluded that when a “statute envisions
that a court may impose a criminal penalty for reentry after any deportation, regardless of
how violative of the rights of the alien the deportation proceeding may have been, the
statute does not comport with the constitutional requirement of due process.” 481 U.S. at
837. It explained that “where a determination made in an administrative proceeding is to
play a critical role in the subsequent imposition of a criminal sanction, there must be
some meaningful review of the administrative proceeding.” Id. at 837–38 (emphasis
added). Addressing the version of § 1326 in effect at the time, the Court held that “where
the defects in an administrative proceeding foreclose judicial review of that proceeding,
an alternative means of obtaining judicial review must be made available before the
administrative order may be used to establish conclusively an element of a criminal
offense.” Id. at 838 (emphasis added). Stated otherwise, “[d]epriving an alien of the
right to have the disposition in a deportation hearing reviewed in a judicial forum
requires, at a minimum, that review be made available in any subsequent proceeding in
which the result of the deportation proceeding is used to establish an element of a
criminal offense.” Id. at 839.
The government contends that the district court erred in finding § 1225(b)(1)(D)
unconstitutional under Mendoza-Lopez for two distinct reasons. First, it contends that we
need not address the constitutionality of § 1225(b)(1)(D) because the alleged
constitutional violation during the November 20, 2014 removal proceeding, about which
8
Villarreal complains, was harmless. Second, it seeks to distinguish the holding of
Mendoza-Lopez, thus arguing that § 1225(b)(1)(D) is constitutional and by its plain terms
precludes Villarreal’s attack on his prior removal. Alternatively, it argues that even if
§ 1225(b)(1)(D) were unconstitutional, Villarreal’s claims attacking his removal
proceeding fail under the standards for the defense afforded him under § 1326(d).
On its first contention, the government argues that neither the district court nor this
court needs to reach the constitutionality of § 1225(b)(1)(D) because any due process
violation in the 2014 removal proceeding was harmless. But in considering
harmlessness, we would still have to consider the nature of Villarreal’s challenge to his
2014 removal, the strength of his arguments, and the consequences of the challenged
conduct. It would be impossible for a court to consider the harm of a constitutional
violation without considering its impact on the defendant. Thus, a finding that we have
jurisdiction would have to precede any effort by us to consider the harm or lack thereof of
the alleged due process violation.
Focusing specifically on the district court’s finding of unconstitutionality, the
government argues that because Congress had authority to adopt expedited removal at the
Nation’s borders, it also could constitutionally bar direct review of such removal orders.
But that is not disputed, and we agree with that proposition as far as it goes. Rather, the
dispute here concerns whether a defendant in a later criminal prosecution that relies on
an expedited removal as an element can attack the validity of that element. Because that
inquiry takes us to the holding of Mendoza-Lopez, the government attempts to limit the
application of Mendoza-Lopez by noting that the defendants removed in Mendoza-Lopez
9
had already entered the country and were not aliens attempting to enter at the border. See
481 U.S. at 830. The force of that distinction, however, goes only to the question of
whether Congress had the power to authorize expedited removal for aliens at the border
and does not explain why a defendant who was formerly detained at the border would
not need to be able to challenge the elements of a § 1326 criminal prosecution that is
later initiated in the United States. Under the principles announced by Mendoza-Lopez,
removal — of whatever kind — when made an element of a criminal offense must be
subject to some meaningful review, either administratively or during the subsequent
prosecution. And while administrative and court reviews can undoubtedly be denied for
expedited removals at the border, some meaningful review of such a removal cannot be
denied when the government chooses to elevate the fact of removal to become an element
of a criminal offense. In this case, Mendoza-Lopez requires that the defendant have the
right to challenge each element, including the validity of the underlying removal, when
he has not had a prior opportunity to do so. “Depriving an alien of the right to have the
disposition in a deportation hearing reviewed in the judicial forum requires . . . that
review be made available in any subsequent proceeding in which the result of the
deportation proceeding is used to establish an element of a criminal offense.” Mendoza-
Lopez, 481 U.S. at 839 (emphasis added).
Additionally, the government argues that the standards for reviewing removals
included in § 1326(d) somehow redeem any flaw created by § 1225(b)(1)(D). But this
argument fails to recognize the operation of the two provisions, which serve distinct
roles. Section 1326(d) provides standards for review of all removal orders used as
10
elements to prosecute § 1326 violations, whereas § 1225(b)(1)(D) prohibits review of
only a subclass of those removal orders that are known as expedited removal orders.
When an expedited removal forms the basis of a § 1326 prosecution, § 1225(b)(1)(D)
precludes a court from reviewing the validity of the removal. Thus, while § 1326(d)
provides general standards for challenging removals that form the basis of a § 1326
prosecution, § 1225(b)(1)(D) purports to carve out expedited removals from the operation
of § 1326(d).
Because § 1225(b)(1)(D) prohibits Villarreal from challenging the validity of the
removal order that forms the basis — an element — of the § 1326 offense being
prosecuted, it denies him due process. Accordingly, we conclude, as did the district
court, that the provision is unconstitutional as it operates in the circumstances of this
case. See United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011)
(holding § 1225(b)(1)(D) unconstitutional to the extent it bars review of an expedited
removal order in a § 1326 prosecution). But cf. United States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 227 F.3d
476, 486 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality
of § 1225(b)(1)(D) because the alien suffered no prejudice from the allegedly illegal
removal).
III
On the merits of his challenge to the validity of his expedited removal order of
November 20, 2014, Villarreal contends that the procedures were “fundamentally unfair”
and therefore that his § 1326 conviction, which relied on that removal order, cannot
11
stand. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3); see also Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. at 839–40. He asserts
that after he arrived at the border and the immigration officer discovered that he was
using another person’s passport card, a fraudulent identity, and falsely claimed
citizenship, the officer advised him of the right to have counsel, which he invoked, thus
“cut[ting] off communication” and precluding his participation in the expedited removal
proceeding. He argues that in this manner, he was “forced to choose between two non-
exclusive constitutional rights.” He also argues that as a result, he was prejudiced
“because absent the procedural violation, there was a reasonable probability the officers
would have granted statutory relief in the form of withdrawal” of his application for
admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(4).
To demonstrate that a removal order used in a § 1326 criminal prosecution is
“fundamentally unfair,” the defendant must show, first, a violation of his due process
rights and, second, prejudice caused by the violation. United States v. El Shami, 434 F.3d
659, 664 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wilson, 316 F.3d 506, 510 (4th Cir. 2003).
And, to establish prejudice, the defendant must show that, “but for the errors complained
of, there was a reasonable probability that he would not have been deported.” El Shami,
434 F.3d at 665; Wilson, 316 F.3d at 511.
In this case, when the immigration officer discovered that Villarreal’s admission to
the United States on November 20, 2014, was being sought by fraud, the officer advised
Villarreal of his Miranda rights in light of a potential criminal prosecution. Villarreal
also became subject to the expedited removal procedure under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). That
section provides that if an immigration officer determines that an alien arriving at the
12
border is inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(C) (for (i) seeking admission “by fraud or
willfully misrepresenting a material fact” or (ii) falsely representing himself to be a
citizen) or under § 1182(a)(7) (for not being in possession of valid entry documents and
passports or travel documents), “the officer shall order the alien removed from the United
States without further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to
apply for asylum . . . or a fear of persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). Under this
abbreviated process, the immigration officer advises the alien of his determination and
provides the alien “an opportunity to respond.” 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(i). Villarreal
notes that after he had invoked his right to counsel, he could not respond to the
immigration officer’s determination and contends therefore that it was the conflict
between exercising his right to counsel and his right to participate in this expedited
removal proceeding that violated his due process rights.
The district court declined to address Villarreal’s procedural due process
argument, reasoning that because Villarreal could not “demonstrate prejudice that could
have resulted from” the violation, he had failed to establish that the expedited removal
procedure was fundamentally unfair. We agree.
To show prejudice, Villarreal argues that, but for the alleged due process violation,
“there was a reasonable probability the officers would have granted [him] statutory relief
in the form of withdrawal” of admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(4), which provides that
“[a]n alien applying for admission may, in the discretion of the Attorney General and at
any time, be permitted to withdraw the application for admission and depart immediately
from the United States.” Such relief would have displaced the expedited removal order,
13
which was an essential element of his § 1326 violation. But, as the district court
concluded, Villarreal’s attempt to show prejudice fails.
First, Villarreal presented nothing to establish that he would have requested a
§ 1225(a)(4) withdrawal had he responded to the immigration officer. Indeed, the district
court observed that Villarreal submitted no evidence, or even argument, that he knew of
his ability to request withdrawal of his application, and there was no requirement that he
be so advised.
Second, withdrawal of admission under § 1225(a)(4) is granted “in the discretion
of the Attorney General” (emphasis added), and numerous factors suggest that the
Attorney General would not have exercised his discretion in Villarreal’s favor. As of the
time of his removal, Villarreal had seven criminal convictions — six misdemeanors and
one felony. In addition, Villarreal had been deported only shortly before his November
20, 2014 attempted entry. Moreover, before that removal, Villarreal had five times been
allowed to return to Mexico voluntarily after entering illegally. And Villarreal’s most
recent attempt to enter the country in 2014 was accompanied by fraud, including his use
of someone else’s passport card, his misidentification of himself, and his representation
that he was a citizen. But perhaps most indicative was the fact that the immigration
officer, to whom Villarreal would have requested withdrawal, exercised his discretion to
refer Villarreal to the U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecution. The officer would not have
made that recommendation if he were inclined to exercise discretion to let Villarreal
voluntarily withdraw his admission application under § 1225(a)(4).
14
Despite these facts, which strongly indicate that the Attorney General would not
have exercised his discretion favorably with respect to any request by Villarreal for
withdrawal under § 1225(a)(4), Villarreal presented the district court with an anonymous
document indicating that withdrawal had been granted to an alien in circumstances
purportedly similar to those of Villarreal. But, as the district court pointed out, the
circumstances of the posited comparator were substantially different in that, for example,
he had only one criminal conviction, while Villarreal had seven.
In sum, because Villarreal did not sufficiently demonstrate a reasonable
probability that the Attorney General would have allowed him to withdraw his
application for admission under § 1225(a)(4), he failed to show prejudice, as required to
demonstrate that his removal was fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, Villarreal’s
conviction under § 1326 based on his November 20, 2014 expedited removal is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
15