FILED United States Court of UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ March 29, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-6189 (D.C. No. 5:18-CR-00125-HE-1) JOSE RAMON CONTRERAS- (W.D. Okla.) CABRERA, a/k/a Jose Contreras- Cabrera, a/k/a Jose Ramon Contreras, a/k/a Ramon Contreras, a/k/a Hector Morales, a/k/a Joe Anthony Rodriguez, a/k/a Jimmy Marie Morales, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ * The parties have not requested oral argument, and it would not materially help us to decide this appeal. We have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). The defendant, Jose Ramos Contreras-Cabrera, pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after removal. See 8 U.S.C. §1326(a). But he later sought to withdraw the guilty plea, arguing that the original removal order had been invalid. The district court denied the motion to withdraw, reasoning that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) prohibited Mr. Contreras-Cabrera’s collateral challenge to the validity of the removal order. Mr. Contreras-Cabrera appeals, arguing (1) that he either satisfied or was excused from satisfying § 1326(d) and (2) that the original removal order was void because the immigration judge lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. 1. Standard of Review When reviewing the denial of Mr. Contreras-Cabrera’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we apply the abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Sandoval, 390 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 2004). 2. Requirements to Collaterally Challenge the Removal Order Mr. Contreras-Cabrera contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw because his alleged acts would not have constituted the crime of illegal reentry. This crime is defined as the reentry into the United States after exclusion, removal, 2 deportation, or denial of admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Mr. Contreras- Cabrera contends that he did not commit this crime because his prior removal order had been void. To collaterally challenge the removal order, Mr. Contreras-Cabrera had to prove three elements: 1. he had exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to challenge the removal order, 2. the removal proceedings had improperly deprived him of an opportunity for judicial review, and 3. the entry of the removal order had been fundamentally unfair. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(1–3). The district court concluded that Mr. Contreras-Cabrera had failed to satisfy any of the three elements. Because we agree that Mr. Contreras-Cabrera failed to exhaust administrative remedies, we affirm. 1 3. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies We start (and ultimately end) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals