United States v. Rafael Mata-Jimenez ( 2019 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 30 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50072
Plaintiff-Appellee, DC No. CR 16-02163 MMA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAFAEL MATA-JIMENEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 7, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,***
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
***
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Defendant Rafael Mata-Jimenez (“Mata-Jimenez”) appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with illegal
reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision de novo, United States v.
Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
Mata-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered a conditional guilty
plea to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) after the district court
denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. Mata-Jimenez contends that the
district court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment under 8
U.S.C. § 1326(d) because the underlying removal order violated his due process
rights.
To succeed in challenging the validity of an underlying removal order under
§ 1326(d), a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) he exhausted any available
administrative remedies; (2) “the deportation proceedings at which the order was
issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review;” and
(3) “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). To
satisfy the third requirement, a defendant must show that his “due process rights
were violated by defects in the underlying deportation proceeding” and that he
2
“suffered prejudice as a result of the defects.” United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541
F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2008).
Because demonstrating prejudice is a necessary and indispensable element to
Mata-Jimenez’s challenge under § 1326(d), his challenge must fail. Mata-Jiminez
was convicted of an aggravated felony which negates any prejudice. See United
States v. Alvarado-Pineda, 774 F.3d 1198, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 2014) (“As a general
matter, a defendant who has been convicted of an aggravated felony cannot show
that he was prejudiced by defects in his underlying proceedings.”). Prior to his
2015 removal order, Mata-Jimenez was convicted of felony infliction of a corporal
injury on a spouse under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) and sentenced to five
years’ imprisonment. This Circuit has held that a conviction under § 273.5(a) is
categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). See Banuelos-Ayon v.
Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying the categorical approach
and holding that Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a) is a categorical match to 18 U.S.C. §
16(a)). A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) with a term of imprisonment of “at
least one year” is an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining an “aggravated felony” as
including “a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18, but not
including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at
3
least one year”). Because Mata-Jimenez was convicted under § 273.5, a
categorical match to a crime of violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), and
sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, his conviction constitutes an aggravated
felony under the INA. Consequently, he cannot show prejudice under § 1326(d)
and his collateral challenge fails. Alvarado-Pineda, 774 F.3d at 1201–02.
Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Mata-Jimenez’s motion to
dismiss the indictment.
AFFIRMED.
4