United States v. Rafael Mata-Jimenez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 30, 2019
• Docket: 18-50072
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50072

Plaintiff-Appellee, DC No. CR 16-02163 MMA

v. MEMORANDUM* RAFAEL MATA-JIMENEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 7, 2019** Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Defendant Rafael Mata-Jimenez (“Mata-Jimenez”) appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with illegal

reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision de novo, United States v.

Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Mata-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered a conditional guilty

plea to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) after the district court

denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. Mata-Jimenez contends that the

district court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(d) because the underlying removal order violated his due process

rights.

To succeed in challenging the validity of an underlying removal order under

§ 1326(d), a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) he exhausted any available

administrative remedies; (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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). To

satisfy the third requirement, a defendant must show that his “due process rights

were violated by defects in the underlying deportation proceeding” and that he

2 “suffered prejudice as a result of the defects.” United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541

F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2008).

Because demonstrating prejudice is a necessary and indispensable element to

Mata-Jimenez’s challenge under § 1326(d), his challenge must fail. Mata-Jiminez

was convicted of an aggravated felony which negates any prejudice. See United

States v. Alvarado-Pineda, 774 F.3d 1198, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 2014) (“As a general

matter, a defendant who has been convicted of an aggravated felony cannot show

that he was prejudiced by defects in his underlying proceedings.”). Prior to his

2015 removal order, Mata-Jimenez was convicted of felony infliction of a corporal

injury on a spouse under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) and sentenced to five

years’ imprisonment. This Circuit has held that a conviction under § 273.5(a) is

categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). See Banuelos-Ayon v.

Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying the categorical approach

and holding that Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a) is a categorical match to 18 U.S.C. §

16(a)). A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) with a term of imprisonment of “at

least one year” is an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act

(“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining an “aggravated felony” as

including “a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18, but not

including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at

3 least one year”). Because Mata-Jimenez was convicted under § 273.5, a

categorical match to a crime of violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), and

sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, his conviction constitutes an aggravated

felony under the INA. Consequently, he cannot show prejudice under § 1326(d)

and his collateral challenge fails. Alvarado-Pineda, 774 F.3d at 1201–02.

Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Mata-Jimenez’s motion to

dismiss the indictment.

AFFIRMED.