F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
APR 26 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-1415
HECTOR AREVALO-TAVARES,
also known as Hector M. Arevalo,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. No. 98-CR-247-S)
Submitted on the briefs:
Michael G. Katz, Federal Public Defender, and Warren R. Williamson, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Thomas L. Strickland, United States Attorney, and Andrew A. Vogt, Assistant
United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before TACHA, McKAY , and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM .
Defendant was convicted of one count of illegal reentry after deportation in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a) . On appeal, he asserts that the district court erred
in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his prior
deportation proceedings violated due process. We affirm. 1
In January 1991, Defendant Hector Arevalo-Tavares, a Mexican citizen,
was convicted in Colorado state court of second degree sexual assault and second
degree burglary. On April 26, 1991, he was ordered deported from the United
States to Mexico by an immigration judge. On October 19, 1995, shortly after he
was paroled by the state, he was deported to Mexico pursuant to the April 26,
1991 Deportation Order. In 1998, he was found in the United States. Because he
did not receive permission from the Attorney General to reenter, he was arrested
and indicted for illegal reentry after deportation.
In his pretrial motion to dismiss, Defendant collaterally attacked the
constitutional validity of the 1991 deportation proceedings. 2 He claimed the
deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair; the immigration judge failed
to advise him of his right to appeal; and he did not voluntarily waive this right.
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
oral argument.
2
The transcript from the May 14, 1999 hearing discloses that Defendant
withdrew two of the three grounds raised in his motion: his claim of derivative
citizenship; and his claim of disparate sentencing under § 1326(b)(2).
-2-
Defendant also claimed that the government was unable to produce the tape
recording from his 1991 deportation hearing or any record indicating he was
advised of his right to appeal.
In response, the government acknowledged that it attempted to obtain a
copy of the tape recording of the deportation hearing, but that it was advised by
the Executive Office of Immigration Review that the tape, for unknown reasons,
was void of any recorded information. The government did, however, attach two
documents to its response to Defendant’s motion. R. Vol. 1, Tab 17. One was a
copy of Mr. Arevalo-Tavares’ motion for enlargement of time, dated May 7,
1991, in which he requested the immigration judge enter an order “granting him
additional time in the appeal.” The second was a copy of the immigration
judge’s May 9, 1991 Order denying the motion. The immigration judge stated, in
relevant part, that Mr. Arevalo-Tavares “was advised of his right to appeal,” that
“he reserved that right,” and that under federal regulations “the court [was]
without authority to extend the time within which a party’s Notice of Appeal
must be filed.”
After hearing argument and reviewing the evidence, the district court
denied the motion to dismiss, stating:
Accordingly, there is no record of the immigration proceeding in
question. The Court in reviewing the defendant’s own motion, it
appears this motion is sufficient to satisfy the Court that the
-3-
defendant was aware of a deadline from which he was requesting,
quote, additional time to appeal his conviction.
I think it is a fair and clear deduction from that allegation by the
defendant himself that he was advised of his right to appeal and of a
deadline so to do.
Further in support of the government’s position is the order by the
immigration judge on the 9th of May, 1991 . . . stating that . . .
Hector Arevalo-Tavares reserve[s] the right embodied in that order.
The judge goes on to deny the motion[] for enlargement of time to
appeal the defendant’s deportation. It appears clear from those two
pieces of documentary evidence and the Court concludes that the
defendant was, at his deportation proceeding on March – April 26,
1991, was advised of his right to appeal the decision in that
deportation proceeding by Judge MacKenzie Rast, the immigration
judge.
R., Vol. 3, Tr. May 14, 1999 hearing at 18.
On appeal, Defendant Arevalo-Tavares argues that he was denied due
process because the 1991 administrative hearing leading to his deportation
deprived him of his right to judicial review.
A collateral attack on the constitutional validity of deportation proceedings
in a § 1326 prosecution presents a mixed question of law and fact that this court
reviews de novo. See United States v. Valdez, 917 F.2d 466, 468 (10th Cir.
1990). A defendant prosecuted under § 1326 must show in a collateral challenge
to a prior deportation hearing that the deportation hearing was fundamentally
unfair, and that it deprived him of a direct appeal. See United States v.
-4-
Wittgenstein, 163 F.3d 1164, 1170 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2355
(1999); United States v. Meraz-Valeta, 26 F.3d 992, 998 (10th Cir. 1994).
Defendant argues that the government’s inability to produce the tape
recording from his April 26, 1991 deportation hearing deprives him of an
opportunity for a meaningful review of his claim that he was not properly
informed of his right to appeal. Therefore, according to Defendant, the burden of
proof shifts to the government to show that he was not deprived of his right to
appeal, and that he knowingly and intelligently waived the right.
Recently this court considered and rejected a similar argument. In United
States v. Solano-Ramos, No. 99-1252, 2000 WL 158952 (10th Cir. Feb. 15, 2000)
(unpublished), we held that, even where the deportation hearing tape is
unavailable, the burden of proof in a collateral attack on a deportation order is on
a defendant based on the presumption of regularity that attaches to a final
deportation order. Id. at **3. This court relied on Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20
(1992), which involved constitutional review of the burden of proof and
presumptions under a state sentence enhancement statute in challenges to prior
convictions in recidivism proceedings.
In Parke, the Supreme Court stated that “[o]n collateral review, we think it
defies logic to presume from the mere unavailability of a transcript . . . that the
defendant was not advised of his rights.” Id. at 30. The Court held that “even
-5-
when a collateral attack on a final conviction rests on constitutional grounds, the
presumption of regularity that attaches to final judgments makes it appropriate to
assign a proof burden to the defendant.” Id. at 31. Furthermore, the presumption
of regularity “applie[s] equally to other forms of collateral attack,” not just
habeas actions. Id. at 29-30. Consequently, the burden of proof is on Defendant
Arevalo-Tavares , not the government, to overcome the presumption that his 1991
deportation proceedings “were conducted in a valid manner.” Solano-Ramos,
2000 WL 158952, at **3; see also United States v. Martinez-Amaya, 67 F.3d
678, 681-82 (8th Cir. 1995) (“the alien, not the government, bears the burden of
proof in a collateral attack upon a prior deportation”).
Defendant argues that the logical inference that must be drawn from his
1991 motion for enlargement of time is that he was not advised of his right to
appeal the deportation order. We disagree. The motion for enlargement of time
indicates just the contrary: that the immigration judge’s advice regarding the
right to appeal did not slip past Defendant. The motion sufficiently indicates that
he was advised of this right as well as the time period in which to appeal.
Furthermore, the immigration judge’s order denying Defendant’s motion
specifically states that Defendant was advised of his right to appeal and that he
reserved the right. As in Solano-Ramos, Defendant did not present any witnesses
or affidavits at the hearing on his motion to dismiss.
-6-
We conclude that Defendant has failed to meet his burden of proving he
was denied his right to appeal his 1991 deportation order. The record indicates
that Defendant waived his right to appeal by failing to file a timely appeal, and
that he made this waiver after receiving sufficient notice of his right.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-7-