United States v. Palomar-Santiago

Refugio Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident since 1990, was convicted of felony DUI in California in 1991. In 1998, he was removed from the United States after an immigration judge classified his DUI conviction as an aggravated felony. He waived his right to appeal. In 2004, the Supreme Court held in Leocal v. Ashcroft that felony DUI is not an aggravated felony, meaning Palomar-Santiago's removal order never should have issued. In 2017, he was found in the United States and indicted for unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing his prior removal order was invalid. The district court dismissed the indictment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that he was excused from proving the first two requirements of § 1326(d). The Supreme Court reversed unanimously, holding that each statutory requirement is mandatory.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that each of the statutory requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) is mandatory. A noncitizen charged with unlawful reentry may not challenge an underlying removal order unless they demonstrate all three conditions: exhaustion of administrative remedies, deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review, and fundamental unfairness of the removal order. An immigration judge's substantive error on the merits does not excuse the noncitizen's failure to comply with the mandatory exhaustion requirement if further administrative review could fix that error.

Whether a defendant charged with illegal reentry may challenge the validity of his removal order solely by showing that his crime is no longer a removable offense, even if he failed to satisfy the procedural requirements of administrative exhaustion and deprivation of judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d).

The decision significantly limited the ability of noncitizens to collaterally attack removal orders in criminal illegal reentry prosecutions, even when the underlying removal was substantively invalid. It reinforced strict procedural requirements under § 1326(d), creating a higher bar for defendants in the Ninth Circuit and other jurisdictions. Scholars and advocacy organizations criticized the ruling for denying relief to individuals who were wrongly deported due to legal errors, and an amicus brief highlighted the racist, anti-Mexican origins of the unlawful reentry statute. The case, decided alongside Garland v. Dai, signaled the Supreme Court's rejection of Ninth Circuit rules that had provided procedural protections for immigrants.