USA V. HOMERO RUIZ-CALDERON, No. 22-30099 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-30099 D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00032-WFN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* HOMERO RUIZ-CALDERON, AKA Homero Calderon-Ruiz, AKA Homero Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 26, 2024** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Homero Ruiz-Calderon appeals his conviction, following a conditional guilty plea, for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm. A defendant charged with a criminal offense under § 1326 may challenge his underlying removal order only if he “exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(1). Ruiz-Calderon, who waived his administrative appeal of his removal order, contends that he can nevertheless challenge it because the immigration judge (“IJ”)’s incorrect advisement concerning his right to voluntary departure rendered his waiver invalid. We recently rejected this precise argument, holding that an administrative appeal is “available” to a defendant within the meaning of § 1326(d)(1) even if the IJ’s statements regarding voluntary departure affected the defendant’s understanding of the value of an appeal. See United States v. PortilloGonzalez, 80 F.4th 910, 919-20 (9th Cir. 2023). Because Ruiz-Calderon did not file such an appeal, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies and was accordingly precluded from challenging his underlying removal order. See id. at 920; see also United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321, 329 (2021) (“[E]ach of the statutory requirements of § 1326(d) is mandatory.”). AFFIRMED. 2 22-30099
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
