NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50178
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01021-JLS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE RAMIREZ-ACOLTZI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 6, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit
Judges.
Jose Ramirez-Acoltzi challenges his conviction for illegally entering the
United States after being deported. He argues that the January 1997 deportation
upon which his conviction is based was fundamentally unfair because the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
page 2
Immigration Judge failed to meaningfully advise Ramirez of his apparent
eligibility for relief from deportation.
To prevail on this argument, Ramirez must demonstrate prejudice, which
requires showing that a plausible ground for relief from deportation existed at the
time of his deportation hearing. See United States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180,
1185 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.
2000)). Because Ramirez argues that he was eligible for relief from deportation in
part through a waiver of criminal inadmissibility, he must point to facts making it
plausible that his deportation would have caused extreme hardship to his citizen
family. Id. at 1184 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)).
In his attempt to show the plausibility of an extreme hardship finding,
Ramirez relies on his own declaration (which described his family ties in the
United States), and counsel’s argument that deportation would have harmed
Ramirez’s citizen daughter because her health would have deteriorated without the
medicine Ramirez’s economic support helped provide. Even if we could credit
counsel’s argument (as opposed to what the declaration actually says), these are
merely the “common results of deportation,” which we have held are insufficient to
establish extreme hardship. See Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d at 1185–86; United States
page 3
v. Arce-Hernandez, 163 F.3d 559, 563–64 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Ramirez
has failed to demonstrate prejudice.
AFFIRMED.