FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30222 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:18-cr-02044- SAB-1 JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ- VALENCIA, AKA Jose Antonio Valencia Gonzalez, OPINION Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 7, 2020 San Francisco, California Filed February 12, 2021 Before: Danny J. Boggs, * Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bennett * The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-VALENCIA SUMMARY ** 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. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 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). COUNSEL Richard C. Burson (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; William D. Hyslop, United States Attorney; United States Attorney’s Office, Yakima, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Paul E. Shelton (argued), Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, Washington, for Defendant- Appellee. OPINION BENNETT, Circuit Judge: The United States appeals from the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging Jose Antonio Gonzalez- Valencia with illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Applying the majority’s holding of our recently published opinion in United States v. Bastide- Hernandez, —F.3d —, 2021 WL 345581 (9th Cir. 2021), we reverse and remand. I Gonzalez-Valencia, a citizen and native of Mexico, has been removed from the United States five times since 2000. His 2001 removal serves as the predicate removal supporting the § 1326 charge in this case. In late 2000, the Immigration 4 UNITED ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals