NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 8, 2021 * Decided July 9, 2021 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 20-2890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Central District of Illinois. v. No. 19-20043-01 MARTIN OCAMPO-GOMEZ, Michael M. Mihm, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. ORDER Martin Ocampo-Gomez, a Mexican citizen, conditionally pleaded guilty to re- entering the United States illegally, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment. In his motion and on appeal, he seeks to attack collaterally the order to remove him from the country, arguing that the order was invalid because his notice to appear at a removal hearing omitted the date * Based on Ocampo-Gomez’s unopposed motion to waive oral argument, we have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 20-2890 Page 2 and time for his hearing. Because circuit precedent forecloses Ocampo-Gomez from collaterally attacking his removal order on this ground, we affirm. After Ocampo-Gomez illegally entered the United States, he was arrested for felony driving under the influence of alcohol with a revoked license in 2005. He later received a notice to appear at an immigration hearing. The notice did not state the time or place of the hearing. Ocampo-Gomez later learned of the hearing time and place and both appeared at the hearing and fully participated. But he did not object to the notice defect, and an immigration judge ordered Ocampo-Gomez’s removal in April 2006. Ocampo-Gomez later returned to the United States, but he was removed twice more, in 2013 and in 2018. After he re-entered the United States most recently, a grand jury indicted Ocampo-Gomez for illegal reentry after removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and he moved to dismiss the indictment. He argued that the 2006 removal order underlying his indictment was invalid because his notice to appear lacked the time and place of his hearing. The district court denied his motion at a hearing. It reasoned that our court’s precedent, including Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956, 958 (7th Cir. 2019), blocked dismissal of the indictment. Ocampo-Gomez then conditionally pleaded guilty, preserving the right to appeal this issue. We review the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment de novo. United States v. Hernandez-Perdomo, 948 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 2020). Ocampo-Gomez’s motion sought to attack collaterally his removal order. To mount such an attack, Ocampo-Gomez had to demonstrate that: (1) he “exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order,” (2) the removal proceedings “improperly deprived” him of the “opportunity for judicial review,” and (3) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals