United States v. Palomar-Santiago

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that each statutory requirement under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) is mandatory.

Respondent, a Mexican national, was removed from the United States previously because he was convicted of an “aggravated felony,” in accordance with 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Respondent was later found in the United States and indicted on one count of unlawful reentry. Since Respondent’s conviction, felony DUI was ruled not to be an “aggravated felony.” Therefore, Respondent moved to dismiss the indictment. The Ninth Circuit held Respondent was excused from proving the requirements of §1326(d) because his felony DUI conviction had not made him removable. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that each statutory requirement under §1326(d) is mandatory. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation conflicts with the actual text of §1326(d). Respondent argued administrative review of his removal order was not available. Respondent reasoned that, because he is a foreign national, there is no substantive basis to challenge an immigration judge’s conclusion that a prior conviction renders the noncitizen removable. However, that is an issue on the merits and does not excuse failure to comply with the statute. Respondent also argued §1326(d) does not apply because there can be no “challenge” or “collateral attack” on a substantively flawed order. This position ignored the plain meaning of “challenge” and “collateral attack.” The text of §1326(d) is unambiguous. REVERSED and REMANDED.