FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 6, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 19-3057 JOSE VINCENTE LIRA-RAMIREZ, a/k/a Vicente Lira-Ramirez, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ( D.C. No. 6:18-CR-10102-JWB-1 ) ______________________________ Melody Brannon, Federal Public Defender, Topeka, Kansas, for Defendant- Appellant. Jared S. Maag, Assistant United States Attorney, Topeka, Kansas (Stephen R. McAllister, United States Attorney, and James A. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________________ Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ This appeal is brought by Mr. Jose Vincente Lira-Ramirez, who was indicted on a charge of illegally reentering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). An element of illegal reentry is the existence of a prior removal order. United States v. Adame-Orozco, 607 F.3d 647, 650–51 (10th Cir. 2010). 1 Though Mr. Lira-Ramirez had been removed in earlier proceedings, he moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over the earlier proceedings because the notice to appear was defective under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The district court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment, and Mr. Lira-Ramirez appeals. We affirm, concluding that our precedents foreclose Mr. Lira- Ramirez’s jurisdictional challenge. Though Mr. Lira-Ramirez raises a new argument, it does not cast doubt on our precedents. We thus affirm the denial of Mr. Lira-Ramirez’s motion to dismiss the indictment. 1. Mr. Lira-Ramirez challenged the immigration judge’s jurisdiction over the prior removal proceedings. 1 According to Mr. Lira-Ramirez, the government must prove not only the existence but also the validity of a prior removal order. See United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018) (“A valid removal order is a predicate element of a conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326.”); United States v. Rea-Beltran, 457 F.3d 695, 702 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that an element of illegal reentry under § 1326(a) is the existence of “a valid deportation order”). We need not decide whether the validity of the prior removal order is an element of the offense. 2 Mr. Lira-Ramirez’s removal proceedings began with service of a document entitled “Notice to Appear.” Under federal law, a notice to appear must state the date and time of the removal hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). But this information was missing from the document sent to Mr. Lira-Ramirez. Despite the omission, Mr. Lira-Ramirez appeared at the removal hearing and was deported. Mr. Lira-Ramirez was later charged with illegally reentering the United States. He challenged the validity of his prior removal order, arguing that the immigration judge had lacked jurisdiction because of the omission of the date and time in the notice to appear. The district court acknowledged that the notice to appear had been defective, but did not conclude that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals