In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUNDO MANRIQUEZ-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 18-20045-001 — James E. Shadid, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED MARCH 3, 2020 — DECIDED MARCH 24, 2020 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Edmundo Manriquez- Alvarado, a citizen of Mexico, has entered the United States repeatedly by stealth. How often we do not know, but the record shows that he was ordered removed in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2017, each time following a criminal convic- tion. (His record includes convictions for burglary, domestic violence, trafficking illegal drugs, and unauthorized reentry.) The gaps between the removal orders stem from 2 No. 19-2521 the time it takes to catch him, plus time he spends in prison following his convictions. Manriquez-Alvarado was found in the United States yet again in 2018 and indicted for illegal reentry. 8 U.S.C. §1326(a), (b)(2). His drug crime is defined by 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(B) as an “aggravated felony”. This increases the maximum punishment for unauthorized reentry. After the district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, Manriquez-Alvarado pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 39 months’ imprisonment. The plea reserved the right to con- test on appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. All of the convictions for reentry rest on the 2008 removal order. Manriquez-Alvarado contends that this order is inva- lid because immigration officials never had “jurisdiction” to remove him. That’s because a document captioned “Notice to Appear” that was served on him in February 2008 did not include a date for a hearing. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), holds that a document missing this information does not satisfy the statutory requirements, 8 U.S.C. §1229(a)(1), for a Notice to Appear. We held in Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019), that Pereira identifies a claims- processing doctrine rather than a rule limiting the jurisdic- tion of immigration officials. Manriquez-Alvarado wants us to overrule Ortiz-Santiago, but that’s not in the cards. No other circuit has disagreed with its holding, and its reason- ing is powerful. That’s not all. Manriquez-Alvarado supposes that, if Pe- reira establishes a jurisdictional rule, then any earlier remov- al decision is void. Established law is otherwise. Lawyers have it drilled into them that jurisdictional deficiencies may be raised at any time. What this means, however, is any time No. 19-2521 3 during the litigation to which the problem applies. Suppose a suit is filed in which the plaintiff alleges the parties’ “resi- dence” rather than their “citizenship.” That is a jurisdictional defect. E.g., Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561 (1915); Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905); Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121 (1891); Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646 (1878). But if the prob- lem escapes notice, and the case goes to judgment on the merits, the result is conclusive; the decision ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals