United States of America v. Eliel Nunez Sanchez, aka Eliel Nunez

Los Angeles, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with reentry after removal.



Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), aliens presenting collateral attacks on removal orders must satisfy three requirements for such challenges to proceed: they must have exhausted all administrative remedies available to them (§ 1326(d)(1)); they must have been deprived of the opportunity for judicial review (§ 1326(d)(2)); and entry of the removal order must have been "fundamentally unfair” (§ 1326(d)(3)). Under United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321 (2021), all three requirements are mandatory.



Nunez, a citizen of Mexico born in 1986, illegally

entered the United States as a child (brought by his parents)

in the early 1990s. In 2006, Nunez was convicted of

possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine)

while armed and was sentenced to nine months in jail. When

arraigned in that 2006 case, Nunez was informed that a

conviction would subject him to "the consequences of

deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States,

or denial of naturalization.”



In July 2010, Nunez was arrested for possession of a

controlled substance (methamphetamine) for sale. The U.S.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) then initiated

removal proceedings against Nunez. Nunez was

concurrently provided with a notice of his right to a hearing

before an immigration judge (IJ). That notice stated, among

other things, that Nunez had the right to contact an attorney

or legal representative to represent him at that hearing and

that he could request a list of legal organizations that might

provide free or low-cost representation.



On August 2, 2010, Nunez received a notice to appear in

El Paso, Texas, for removal proceedings. That notice

informed him that he would be provided with a list of

qualified organizations and attorneys who might represent

him at no cost; that the immigration judge conducting the

proceeding would advise him of any relief from removal for

which he was eligible (including voluntary departure); and

that he would be given an opportunity to apply for such

relief.



Nunez's removal proceeding took place before an IJ on

August 30, 2010. Nunez did not obtain counsel before the

removal proceeding. At the proceeding, Nunez was one of

fourteen noncitizens addressed collectively. A Spanish-

language interpreter contemporaneously translated the

proceedings.2



The group was informed of their right to counsel. The

group collectively confirmed that they had received a list of

free legal service providers in the area. The IJ also informed

the group of their right to appeal the IJ's eventual decision,

as well as the procedures for conducting such an appeal. The

IJ told the group that once a decision was made on their case,

he would ask them if they wanted to appeal; that if they said

"no,” his decision would be final; and that if they said "yes,”

the decision would not be final.

The Defendant entered into a plea agreement.



Affirmed