United States v. Palomar-Santiago
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court held that a prior removal does not excuse a noncitizen from the ordinary requirement of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking cancellation of removal, overriding a Ninth Circuit rule that had excused the requirement for previously removed aliens.
The Facts
Facts
Refugio Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican citizen, was previously removed based on a conviction later held non-deportable under Ninth Circuit precedent. He sought cancellation of a subsequent removal order without meeting the continuous-presence requirement, which is waived when a prior removal was wrongfully executed. The Ninth Circuit held he need not show the prior removal was genuinely erroneous.
The Issue
Issue
Whether an alien prosecuted for illegal reentry may collaterally attack his removal order when the predicate offense has since been reclassified as non-deportable, without satisfying the exhaustion and judicial-review requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1326(d).
The Rules
Rule
Section 1326(d) imposes three mandatory requirements for a collateral attack on a removal order: exhaustion of administrative remedies, deprivation of judicial review, and fundamental unfairness of the underlying removal. These requirements are categorical. No judicial exception excuses failure to exhaust simply because the predicate offense was later declassified as non-deportable.
The Application
Analysis
The Court applied the categorical requirements of § 1326(d) to reject the Ninth Circuit's exception for reclassified offenses. Although Palomar-Santiago's underlying conviction had been reclassified as non-deportable after his removal, the statute mandates that he exhaust administrative remedies and demonstrate the removal was actually wrongful. Requirements that apply regardless of post-removal changes in law. The Court found that allowing such an exception would undermine the statute's categorical structure and create an exception Congress did not provide. Accordingly, Palomar-Santiago's failure to satisfy these exhaustion and judicial-review requirements barred his collateral attack, even though his predicate conviction no longer constituted a deportable offense.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Unanimous Court reversed Ninth Circuit. A noncitizen must demonstrate all statutory requirements including that the prior removal was actually wrongful. Justice Sotomayor wrote for the Court.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support