United States of America v. JESUS ARREDONDO-MARTINEZ, AKA Jesus Arredondo

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Alaska, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESUS ARREDONDO-MARTINEZ,
AKA Jesus Arredondo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50443
D.C. No. 2:10-CR-00525-GHK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,
Senior District Judge. ***
FILED
NOV 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellant Jesus Arredondo-Martinez appeals his conviction for illegal
reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arredondo-Martinez attempted to reenter the United States from Mexico in
2000 and 2002. On both occasions he was removed on an expedited basis pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). He now collaterally attacks those removal orders on the
grounds that they deprived him of due process.
Arredondo-Martinez’s collateral challenges can succeed “only if he is able to
demonstrate that: (1) his due process rights were violated by defects in his
underlying deportation proceeding[s], and (2) he suffered prejudice as a result of
the defects.” United States v. Garcia-Martinez, 228 F.3d 956, 960 (9th Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Even if Arredondo-Martinez could show that his due process rights were
violated, he cannot show prejudice. Because Arredondo-Martinez attempted to
enter the country using an invalidated resident alien card in 2000 and a false birth
certificate in 2002, he cannot show that it is “plausible” that the immigration
officer would have exercised his discretion to allow him to withdraw his
applications for admission but for the violations of due process. See United States
v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because Arredondo-Martinez has failed to show that the predicate expedited
removal orders were invalid, we need not decide whether his 1996 conviction
under California Penal Code § 261.5(c) was an aggravated felony.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --