Term: 2020
Docket: 20-437
United States v. Palomar-santiago
- Pro
20-437 UNITED STATES V. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO DECISION BELOW: 813 Fed.Appx. 282 ORDER OF FEBRUARY 22, 2021: BRADLEY N. GARCIA, ESQ., OF WASHINGTON, D.C., IS APPOINTED TO SERVE AS COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 1/8/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d), a defendant charged with unlawful reentry into the United States following removal may assert the invalidity of the original removal order as an affirmative defense only if he “demonstrates that” he “exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order,” 8 U.S.C. 1326 (d)(1), the removal proceedings “deprived [him] of the opportunity for judicial review,” 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(2), and “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair,” 8 U.S.C. 1326 (d)(3). The question presented is whether a defendant automatically satisfies all three of those prerequisites solely by showing that he was removed for a crime that would not be considered a removable offense under current circuit law, even if he cannot independently demonstrate administrative exhaustion or deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-10011
The United States v. Palomar-Santiago case in 2020 revolved around the issue of whether a defendant could challenge a removal order that was based on an invalid statute, even if they had not exhausted all administrative remedies or were deprived of judicial review. Refugio Palomar-Santiago, originally from Mexico but residing illegally in the U.S., was ordered to be removed due to his conviction for driving under influence (DUI), which at that time was considered as a deportable offense. However, later Supreme Court rulings determined DUI convictions did not constitute grounds for deportation. Despite this change, when Mr.Palomar-Santiago returned to the U.S., he faced charges for illegal reentry after removal. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Mr.Palomar-Santiago stating that he failed to meet all three conditions required by law: exhaustion of administrative remedies; deprivation of opportunity for judicial review; and entry via an order fundamentally unfair - before challenging his initial removal order's validity.
In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Palomar-Santiago, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision undermines Congress' intent in enacting 8 U.S.C. §1326(d). This provision was designed to protect noncitizens from being unlawfully removed and then criminally prosecuted if they return to the U.S., by allowing them to challenge their initial removal orders in a criminal proceeding. The majority held that a defendant cannot rely on this provision unless they can demonstrate "exhaustion of administrative remedies," "deprivation of judicial review," and "a gross miscarriage of justice." However, Justice Sotomayor contended that this interpretation is inconsistent with both the text and purpose of §1326(d), which does not require defendants to show all three elements simultaneously. She also criticized the majority's conclusion as overly harsh, noting it could lead to unjust results such as punishing individuals who were wrongfully deported but failed to exhaust their administrative remedies due either ignorance or inability.
