NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-1635 ______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ALEJANDRO MEZA-MAGALLON, a/k/a Alejandro Mesa-Cruz, a/k/a Leonardo Hernandez, a/k/a Mario Luna-Gomez, Appellant ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 2-17-cr-00379-001) Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, District Judge ______________ Argued on February 13, 2019 BEFORE: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 2, 2019) Keith M. Donoghue Assistant Federal Defender Brett G. Sweitzer Assistant Federal Defender Chief of Appeals Leigh M. Skipper Chief Federal Defender Jacob Schuman [ARGUED] Research and Writing Attorney Federal Community Defender Office for Eastern District 601 Walnut Street The Curtis Center, Suite 540 West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Appellant William M. McSwain United States Attorney Robert A. Zauzmer Assistant United States Attorney Chief of Appeals Bernadette McKeon [ARGUED] Assistant United States Attorney Josh A. Davison Office of United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Appellee ______________ OPINION* ______________ COWEN, Circuit Judge. Alejandro Meza-Magallon appeals from the criminal judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Meza specifically challenges the District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the charge of illegal reentry on the basis of a collateral challenge to the underlying deportation order. Because we agree with the District Court that Meza has failed to establish the requisite prejudice, we will affirm. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 I. Meza was indicted on one count of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) and a single count of interfering with a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer while in the performance of his duties under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) permits a collateral challenge to the validity of the underlying deportation order in certain limited circumstances. Citing this subsection, Meza filed a motion to dismiss the illegal reentry charge. Specifically Meza challenged his deportation order, entered in 2002, on the grounds that the “Stipulated Request for Issuance of Final Order of Removal, Waiver of Appearance and Hearing” (“Stipulated Request”) he signed constituted an invalid waiver. He argued that, as a minor, he was deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing because no notice was provided to his parents or guardians. Furthermore, he asserted that he was incapable of understanding the Stipulated Request because it was written in English. These errors purportedly deprived Meza of an opportunity to request voluntary departure. At the evidentiary hearing, Meza testified on his own behalf, and the government presented the testimony of Jay Varda, an immigration agent. The District Court denied Meza’s motion to dismiss. It rejected his waiver and parental notice arguments, determining that he failed to satisfy the three statutory prerequisites for a collateral attack on his prior deportation order. With respect to the “fundamental unfairness” requirement, the District Court considered whether Meza established ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals