United States v. Palomar-Santiago

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Palomar-Santiago
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: April 27, 2021
Decided: May 24, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Sonia Sotomayor • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett

United States v. Palomar-Santiago is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 27, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that each of the statutory requirements of §1326(d) were mandatory. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Mexican national Refugio Palomar-Santiago was granted permanent resident status in the United States in 1990. The following year, he was convicted of a felony and was later deported based on that conviction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded that Palomar-Santiago's felony conviction was not a crime of violence, and as such did not trigger deportation proceedings. In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was in the United States and was indicted for reentering illegally after being deported. Palomar-Santiago moved to dismiss the indictment, as the crime for which he was originally deported was no longer deportable. The district court ruled that he met the required burden of proof and dismissed the indictment. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issues: The case concerned removable offenses and the validity of removal orders under federal immigration law.
  • The questions presented: "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."[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Refugio Palomar-Santiago was a Mexican national who was granted permanent resident status in the United States in 1990. In 1991, he was convicted of a felony offense–driving under the influence–in California. In 1998, he received a notice from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) informing him that he was subject to removal from the U.S. because the DUI was classified as a crime of violence under federal law, and therefore was considered an aggravated felony under Title 8 of the United States Code.[4] Following a hearing with an immigration judge, Palomar-Santiago was deported from the country. Three years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded that the felony offense that Palomar-Santiago was convicted of was not a crime of violence.[3]

    In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was living in the United States without authorization. A grand jury indicted him for illegally reentering the country after his deportation. Palomar-Santiago moved to dismiss the indictment under Title 8 Section 1326(d). Under the law, a district court must dismiss such an indictment if the defendant has proven, among other things, that their crime was improperly characterized as an aggravated felony and that they were wrongfully removed from the country. The district court held that Palomar-Santiago met his burden of proof and dismissed the indictment.[3]

    On appeal to the 9th Circuit, the government argued that the district court was correct in its application of law, but that the 9th Circuit's legal precedent for handling such matters should be set aside. The government cited sections of the law's text, evidence of differening congressional intent, and different case law from other federal circuit courts. The 9th Circuit concluded that it could only set aside prior precedent if it conflicted with a subsequent Supreme Court decision. That not being the case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the District of Nevada's ruling and dismissed the case.[3]

    United States Code, Title 8

    Section 1326(d) of Title 8 of the United States Code reads as follows:[5]

    “ (d) Limitation on collateral attack on underlying deportation order

    In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien may not challenge the validity of the deportation order described in subsection (a)(1) or subsection (b) unless the alien demonstrates that-

    (1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order;
    (2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and
    (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.[6]
    		 ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ 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.[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that each of the statutory requirements of §1326(d) were mandatory. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In their opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ In 1998, respondent Refugio Palomar-Santiago was removed from the United States based on a conviction for felony driving under the influence (DUI). He later returned to the United States and was indicted on one count of unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U. S. C. §1326(a). Between Palomar-Santiago’s removal and indictment, this Court held that offenses like his DUI conviction do not in fact render noncitizens removable. Palomar-Santiago now seeks to defend against his unlawful-reentry charge by challenging the validity of his 1998 removal order.


    By statute, defendants “may not” bring such collateral attacks “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” that (1) they “exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the [removal] order,” (2) the removal proceedings “improperly deprived [them] of the opportunity for judicial review,” and (3) “entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” §1326(d).

    The question for the Court is whether Palomar-Santiago is excused from making the first two of these showings, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, because his prior removal order was premised on a conviction that was later found not to be a removable offense. The Court holds that the statute does not permit such an exception.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Palomar-Santiago, decided May 24, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "United States v. Palomar-Santiago: Petition for a writ of certiorari," October 5, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, United States v. Palomar-Santiago, decided May 14, 2020
    4. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined," accessed January 12, 2021
    5. ↑ Casetext, "8 U.S.C. § 1326 - Reentry of removed aliens," accessed January 12, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed April 28, 2021
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," accessed April 28, 2021
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=United_States_v._Palomar-Santiago&oldid=8891768"