UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR SANTIAGO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-09No. No. 19-10011

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated the dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling that all statutory elements must be proven.

The Supreme Court reversed this court's earlier decision and sent the case back for reconsideration. This court had previously upheld the district court's dismissal of an indictment under a statute prohibiting reentry by previously removed aliens, reasoning that the defendant did not need to prove all required elements when the underlying removal was based on an improper characterization of an earlier crime as an aggravated felony. The Supreme Court rejected this approach, holding that every statutory requirement in the relevant provision is mandatory and cannot be excused.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether all statutory elements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) are mandatory
Whether a defendant can be excused from proving certain elements based on defects in the underlying removal proceeding
Scope of appellate precedent after Supreme Court reversal

Procedural posture

After the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, the appellate court reconsidered its prior affirmance of the district court's dismissal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER

The Supreme Court recently reversed the judgment in this case, and remanded it to this court for further proceedings. United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 1615, 209 L.Ed.2d 703 (2021).

We previously affirmed the district courts dismissal of the indictment alleging a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, relying on this courts precedent excusing a defendant from proving all of the elements of § 1326(d) when “the crime underlying the original removal was improperly characterized as an aggravated felony.” United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 813 F. Appx 282, 284 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Ochoa, 861 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2017)). The Supreme Court held that “each of the statutory requirements of § 1326(d) is mandatory.” 141 S.Ct. at 1622. We therefore VACATE the dismissal of the indictment and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Courts opinion.

The copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.