green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
75.8 score
“in a criminal proceeding, an alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Ricardo Aguirre-Tello
(2×)
But see United States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir.2001) ("[W]hen the record before the [IJ] raises a reasonable possibility of relief from deportation under this provision, it is a denial of due process to fail to inform an alien of that possibility at the deportation hearing." (quotation omitted) (citing United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000))); cf. United States v. Roque-Espinoza, 338 F.3d 724, 730 (7th Cir.2003) (considering without deciding whether there is a distinction "between an alien's claim that she has a right to seek discretionary relief, and …
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Antonio Flores-Bustos
ij never informed of his eligibility for a 212(h) waiver
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Pedro Velasco-Medina
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
n alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived his right to appeal that order.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Reyes-Montiel
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
in a criminal proceeding, an alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Dequattro
because we are reversing the conviction, we need not reach the remaining sentencing issues raised by the parties.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gonzalez-Reyes
“The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that a[] [noncitizen] in immigration proceedings be ‘made aware that he has a right to seek relief. . . .’” United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)); Valdivia-Flores, 876 F.3d at 1206 (A defendant is “deprived of due process” when his “waiver of the right to seek judicial review was not considered and intelligent”); accord Valdivias-Soto, 112 F.4th at 722 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eliel Sanchez
SANCHEZ “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that an alien in immigration proceedings be ‘made aware that he has a right to seek relief.’” United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sanchez-Merino
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Armando Santos-Santos
See, e.g., Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. at 1621 (describing exhaustion of administrative remedies as “appealing the immigration judge’s decision to the BIA”); Diaz- Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 955, 959 (9th Cir. 2018) (“To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, Diaz needed to ‘put the BIA on notice’ in his appeal from the IJ’s removal order.” (citation omitted)). 5 Compare United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding prejudice where the petitioner had to show “extreme hardship” for relief) with Matter of Arguelles-Campos, 22 I. & N. Dec. 811, 817 (B…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jorge De La Mora-Cobian
We affirm the district court’s conclusion that De La Mora-Cobian’s waiver of his right to appeal was valid. “[A]n alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Francisco Lopez-Reyes
Although Lopez-Reyes “does not have to show that he actually would have been granted relief” from removal to establish prejudice, he still must “show that he had a ‘plausible’ ground for relief from deportation.” United States v. Ubaldo- Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 2 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Tinoco-Garcia
Finally, “[t]he Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that an alien in immigration proceedings be ‘made aware that he has a right to seek relief.’” United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11 (a)(2).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rojas-Osorio
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In that case, the Ninth Circuit further explained that "Ortiz-Lopez would have been deprived of the right to judicial review, because 'an alien who is not made aware that he has a right to seek relief necessarily has no meaningful opportunity to appeal the fact that he was not advised of that right.' " Id. (citing Arrieta , 224 F.3d at 1079 (finding a deprivation of judicial review where an alien was not informed of the right to seek relief from deportation)). *1234 In the instant case, because the IJ failed to meaningfully advise Defendant of his right to pre-hearing voluntary departure relie…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Josue Martinez-Hernandez
For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district courts in these consolidated appeals. 3 3 A successful collateral attack under § 1326(d) also requires an alien to demonstrate “a ‘plausible’ ground for relief from deportation.” United States v. Arietta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Maria Hernandez
“Instead, [she] must only show that [she] had a ‘plausible’ ground for relief from deportation.” Id. (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Valdivia-Flores
(2×)
“In order for [a] waiver to be valid . . . it must be both considered and intelligent.” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Ochoa
On collateral attack of that removal order, we held that “a waiver is not ‘considered and intelligent’ when ‘the record contains an inference that the petitioner is eligible for relief from deportation,’ but the Immigration Judge fails to ‘advise the alien of this possibility and give him the opportunity to develop the issue.’” Id. at 1183 (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guillermo Ortega
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alejandro Limon-Lopez
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000). “[A]n alien who is statutorily barred from obtaining relief from removal cannot be prejudiced by an IJ’s failure to inform him about the possibility of applying for [that] relief ... even if the government does not introduce noticeable documentation of the alien’s” disqualifying conviction before the IJ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carlos Morales
(2×)
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Xochitl Cisneros-Rodriguez
CISNEROS-RODRIGUEZ 25 only show that [she] had a ‘plausible’ ground for relief from deportation.” Id. (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)). “[E]stablishing ‘plausibility’ requires more than establishing a mere ‘possibility.’” Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d at 1089 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gabriela Cordova-Soto
But see United States v. Copeland, 376 F.3d 61, 70-73 (2d Cir.2004) (opining that a “failure to advise a potential deportee' of a right to seek Section 212(c) relief can, if prejudicial, be fundamentally unfair”); United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that the IJ’s failure to inform the alien of eligibility for relief from removal violated due process).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Humberto Gonzalez-Flores
GONZALEZ-FLORES 705 F.3d at 1015 , and we deem the IJ to have breached its obligation to inform an alien of “apparent eligibility” when the IJ either fails to give the alien any information about the existence of relief for which the alien is “apparently eligible,” see United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ortiz-Lopez, 385 F.3d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000), or when the IJ erroneously tells the alien that no relief is possible, see Arias-Ordonez, 597 F.3d at 977 ; see also United…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Humberto Gonzalez-Flores
Under § 1240.11(a)(2), if an alien seeking lawful permanent resident status applies to the IJ for a waiver of a ground of inadmissibility, the IJ “shall inform the alien of his" or her apparent eligibility to apply for any of the benefits enumerated in this chapter and shall afford the alien an opportunity to make application during the hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11 (a)(2). 4 We deem the IJ to have breached its obligation to inform an alien of “apparent eligibility” when the IJ either fails to give the alien any information about the existence of relief for which the alien is “appar…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gonzalez-Flores
Under § 1240.11(a)(2), if an alien seeking lawful permanent resident status applies to the IJ for a waiver of a ground of inadmissibility, the IJ “shall inform the alien of his or her apparent eligibility to apply for any of the benefits enumerated in this chapter and shall afford the alien an opportunity to make application during the hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11 (a)(2). 4 We have applied this obligation outside of the context of an alien’s application for lawful permanent resident status, see Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d at 1015 , and we deem the IJ to have breached its obligation to info…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
George Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch
Cf. United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ismael Jimenez
Regardless of whether Jimenez would have needed to adjust his immigration status to be eligible for a 212(h) waiver, the district court properly concluded that Jimenez suffered no prejudice because he lacked a plausible claim of “extreme hardship.” See United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2000) (“In order to obtain a § 212(h) waiver, the alien must demonstrate that his deportation would cause ‘extreme hardship’ to a ‘spouse, parent or child’ who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.” (quoting § 1182(h))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jesus Valdez-Novoa
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Instead, he must only show that he had a ‘plausible’ ground for relief from deportation.” United States v. Ubaldo- Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)).1 Although our cases reference the “plausibility” standard, we have yet to define it with precision.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jesus Valdez-Novoa
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
VALDEZ-NOVOA 2004) (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)).3 Although our cases reference the “plausibility” standard, we have yet to define it with precision.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jesus Valdez-Novoa
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
VALDEZ-NOVOA 2004) (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)).3 Although our cases reference the “plausibility” standard, we have yet to define it with precision.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Maldonado
Id.; United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joaquin Hernandez-Navarro
MEMORANDUM * Defendant Joaquin Hernandez-Navarro (“Hernandez”) appeals from his conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826 (a) and (b), by challenging the validity of his underlying deportation. 1 We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo, United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 680 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm. 1. [A]n alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.” Id. (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Faustino Gomez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Thus, although “an alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order,” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000), “[a] valid waiver of the right to appeal ‘must be both considered and intelligent,’ ” Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680 (quoting Arrieta, 224 F.3d at 1079 ) (additional internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Morales-Landa
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Vega-Ortiz
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Faustino Gomez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Thus, although “an alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order,” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000), “[a] valid waiver of the right to appeal ‘must be both considered and intelligent,’ ” Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680 (quoting Arrieta, 224 F.3d at 1079 ) (additional internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Encarnacion Gonzalez-Villalobo
(2×)
Second, we have held that an IJ’s failure to inform the alien that he is eligible for a certain type of relief also satisfies § 1326(d)(1) and (d)(2), because “an alien who is not made aware of ‘his or her apparent eligibility’ for relief has had no ‘meaningful opportunity to appeal’ the removal and seek such relief.” United States v. Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2013) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (holding that an IJ must “inform the alien of a reasonable possibility that the petitione…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Venancio Rojas-Pedroza
Second, the same failure to inform an alien regarding “apparent eligibility” for relief also “deprive[s] the alien of the opportunity for judicial review,” § 1326(d)(2), because “an alien who is not made aware that he has a right to seek relief necessarily has no meaningful opportunity to appeal *1263 the fact that he was not advised of that right.” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Vidal-Mendoza
Id. at 1050 (quoting Arrieta, 224 F.3d at 1079).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Reyes
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Meraz-Olivera
(2×)
See United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 953-54 (9th Cir.2012); United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Reyes-Bonilla
(2×)
See Gonzalez, 429 F.3d at 1256 ; United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Rodriguez-Arroyo
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Antonio Muniz-Bravo
See Ram v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir.2008); cf. United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Lachino-Estrada
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Moreover, even in the latter example given by the Government, the IJ would have failed to comply with the requirement to “give [the alien] the opportunity to develop the issue.” Arrieta, 224 F.3d at 1079 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Deleon-Torres
United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fernando Rojas-Lagunez
In order to show prejudice invalidating the underlying removal proceeding, Rojas was required to show that he had a “ ‘plausible’ ground for relief from [removal].” United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting *13 United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Isaac Ramos
(2×)
DISCUSSION A. Validity of Waiver of Appeal We must first determine whether Ramos validly waived his right to appeal by signing the Stipulated Removal form, which would preclude this collateral challenge to his removal. “[A]n alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Isaac Ramos
(2×)
DISCUSSION A. Validity of Waiver of Appeal [3] We must first determine whether Ramos validly waived his right to appeal by signing the Stipulated Removal form, which would preclude this collateral challenge to his removal. “[A]n alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.” United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ruben Alcazar-Bustos
(3×)
On collateral attack, a court reviewing a removal order must determine whether the defendant has a “ ‘plausible’ ground for relief.” Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1050 (quoting United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Los Angeles Alliance for Survival Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness Jerry Rubin
v.
City of Los Angeles Richard J. Riordan, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, in His Official Capacity Bernard Parks, Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles, in His Official Capacity
v.
City of Los Angeles Richard J. Riordan, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, in His Official Capacity Bernard Parks, Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles, in His Official Capacity
97-56742.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 22, 2000.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (1)
224 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2000)
LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR SURVIVAL; LOS ANGELES COALITION TO END HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS; JERRY RUBIN, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; RICHARD J. RIORDAN, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, in his official capacity; BERNARD PARKS, Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 97-56742
Office of the Circuit Executive
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Argued and Resubmitted July 25, 2000--San Francisco, California
Filed September 22, 2000
COUNSEL: Peter Eliasberg, ACLU, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Deborah Sanchez, Deputy City Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the defendants-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Richard A. Paez, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV 97-06793 RAP
Before: Betty B. Fletcher, David R. Thompson and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~1076]1
We affirm the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 171664, codified as Los Angeles Municipal Code S 4159, and remand for further proceedings.
[*~1079]2
The district court's grant of the preliminary injunction was premised in part on a prior Ninth Circuit decision, Carreras v. City of Anaheim, 768 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1985), in which we held that under the California constitution's liberty of speech clause regulation of solicitation was content based. In the case at hand, we concluded that Carreras' reading of the California constitution was not based on a decision of the highest court of California, and certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether regulation of solicitation was content based under the California constitution. See Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 157 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1998). The California Supreme Court answered that under California law such regulation is content neutral. See Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 993 P.2d 334 (Cal. 2000). We adhere to the California Supreme Court's rulings on California law.
[*~1082]3
However, even though an ordinance regulating solicitation is content-neutral, whether the ordinance in certain aspects and applications infringes upon the right to free speech raises other serious questions. Because the balance of hardships tips sharply in the appellees' favor and the appellees would be irreparably injured absent the preliminary injunction, we affirm the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings. See United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED