In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1964 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELEAZAR HERNANDEZ-PERDOMO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cr-744 — Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge. ____________________ No. 19-2113 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ISMAEL RANGEL-RODRIGUEZ Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cr-581 – Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. ____________________ 2 Nos. 19-1964 & 19-2113 ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 2019 — DECIDED JANUARY 23, 2020 ____________________ Before ROVNER, BRENNAN, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Ismael Rangel-Rodriguez and Eleazar Hernandez-Perdomo are both Mexican citizens who have never been lawfully admitted to the United States. Sev- eral years ago, immigration authorities served both of them with Notices to Appear (“NTA”) for removal proceedings. These NTAs—like many—were defective because they did not list a date or time for an initial removal hearing. For dif- ferent reasons, Rangel and Hernandez were not present at their respective removal hearings, and the immigration judges ordered them removed in absentia. United States Immi- gration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) eventually en- forced these orders and removed both men to Mexico, but they each illegally returned to the United States and were in- dicted for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), they moved to dismiss their respective in- dictments by collaterally attacking their underlying removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) based on the defective NTAs. The district courts denied their motions, and each defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to the illegal reentry charge and reserved his right to appeal the denial of the mo- tion to dismiss the indictment. We have consolidated the cases for decision. We conclude that Rangel and Hernandez have failed to demonstrate that they satisfy any of the requirements set out in § 1326(d). We therefore affirm the judgments. Nos. 19-1964 & 19-2113 3 I. Background A. Ismael Rangel-Rodriguez In November 2010, police arrested Rangel for driving on a suspended license and several other offenses. The govern- ment served him that same day with an NTA announcing re- moval proceedings. This NTA ordered Rangel to appear be- fore an immigration judge on “a date to be set at a time to be set.” Rangel ultimately learned the date and time of his up- coming hearings, though, because he appeared at three hear- ings via video conference in late winter and early spring of 2011, while he was in ICE custody. Around March of 2011, Rangel was released on bond. In January of 2012, however, Rangel was arrested for driving under the influence and taken into custody. His next hearing took place on February 22, 2012. Because Rangel remained in state custody, he did not attend this hearing and the immigration judge entered an or- der of removal in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals