Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edwin Enrique Gonzales-Molina was indicted for unlawfully reentering the United States after a prior removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He moved to dismiss the indictment by challenging the validity of the removal order underlying the charge.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the motion. Gonzales-Molina appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), a defendant collaterally attacking the removal order underlying an unlawful-reentry prosecution must establish three requirements: exhaustion of available administrative remedies, improper deprivation of judicial review, and fundamental unfairness in the entry of the order.
The court concluded that Gonzales-Molina failed to make the required showing under any of the three statutory prongs. His challenge to the predicate removal order therefore did not justify dismissal of the indictment.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant challenging a predicate removal order under § 1326(d) must satisfy all three statutory requirements.
- The Fifth Circuit reviews de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an unlawful-reentry indictment on this ground.
- Because Gonzales-Molina established none of the required elements, the district court’s denial of dismissal was affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the demanding, cumulative requirements governing collateral attacks on removal orders in unlawful-reentry prosecutions. A defendant cannot defeat the indictment without proving exhaustion, deprivation of judicial review, and fundamental unfairness.
The unpublished summary-calendar opinion applies established Fifth Circuit precedent and leaves the prosecution against Gonzales-Molina in place.