Search

United States v. Manuel Zumba Mejia - Illegal Reentry

The Second Circuit reversed the SDNY's dismissal of illegal reentry charges against Manuel Zumba Mejia, holding that Mejia could not collateral challenge his underlying removal order because he failed to satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)'s mandatory exhaustion requirements. The court ruled that Palomar-Santiago (2021) abrogates the prior Sosa framework, and no court may excuse a failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 1326(d). The case is remanded for further proceedings.

USA v. Manuel Zumba Mejia - Illegal Reentry Collateral Challenge

The Second Circuit reversed the SDNY and remanded, holding that under United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321 (2021), § 1326(d)'s exhaustion and judicial-review requirements are mandatory and cannot be excused by courts. The ruling abrogates the Circuit's prior Sosa doctrine that permitted defendants to bypass these requirements when their failure to appeal resulted from misleading advice by an immigration judge.

United States v. Manuel Zumba Mejia - Illegal Reentry Conviction

The Second Circuit reversed the Southern District of New York's October 2024 order granting Manuel Zumba Mejia's motion to dismiss a criminal information charging illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The appellate court held that under United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321 (2021), § 1326(d)'s requirements are mandatory and courts may not excuse a defendant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies or satisfy judicial review requirements when collaterally attacking a prior removal order. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

United States v. Manuel Zumba Mejia - Illegal Reentry Prosecution

The Second Circuit reversed the Southern District of New York's order granting Manuel Zumba Mejia's motion to dismiss an illegal reentry prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court held that under United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321 (2021), § 1326(d)'s exhaustion requirements are mandatory and courts may not excuse a defendant's failure to satisfy them. This abrogates the Circuit's prior rule in United States v. Sosa permitting defendants to bypass statutory requirements when underlying removal proceedings were fundamentally unfair.

USA v. Manuel Zumba Mejia - Illegal Reentry Prosecution

The Second Circuit reversed the SDNY's dismissal of illegal reentry charges against Mejia, ruling that defendants cannot bypass § 1326(d)'s mandatory exhaustion requirements. The court held that Sosa's prior exception allowing defendants to circumvent exhaustion based on fundamental unfairness was abrogated by United States v. Palomar-Santiago. Courts may not excuse failures to satisfy § 1326(d)'s mandatory requirements.

United States v. Manuel Zumba Mejia - Illegal Reentry Conviction Upheld

The Second Circuit reversed the SDNY's dismissal of illegal reentry charges against Manuel Zumba Mejia, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)'s requirements for collateral challenges to removal orders are mandatory and cannot be excused by courts. The court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Palomar-Santiago, which abrogated the Second Circuit's prior Sosa standard that permitted defendants to bypass exhaustion requirements when proceedings were fundamentally unfair.

USA v. Manuel Zumba Mejia - Illegal Reentry Conviction Affirmed

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of criminal charges against Manuel Zumba Mejia for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The appellate court held that under the Supreme Court's Palomar-Santiago decision, § 1326(d)'s exhaustion and judicial-review requirements are mandatory and cannot be excused, expressly abrogating the Circuit's prior Sosa rule. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.