This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Palomar‑Santiago, a Mexican national living in the United States, was convicted in California state court of a felony DUI in 1988, which was treated as an aggravated felony subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
He was removed after a hearing before an immigration judge and waived his right to appeal.
In 2017 Palomar‑Santiago was found in the United States and indicted on one count of unlawful reentry after removal.
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the case turns on whether a non‑citizen may collaterally attack a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) without showing (1) exhaustion of any available administrative remedies, (2) that the removal proceedings improperly deprived him of the right to judicial review, or (3) that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to Petitioner, section 1326(d) resolves the question presented in this case.
Palomar‑Santiago (Respondent)
According to Respondent, section 1326(d)’s text is clear; the immigration judge’s finding that the prior offense qualified as an aggravated felony does not satisfy the statutory requirements of exhaustion, deprivation of review, or fundamental unfairness.
According to Bradley N. Garcia, the indictment should be dismissed because a Section 1326 prosecution cannot proceed based on an invalid removal order, and the invalidity of the order here is undisputed.
According to Respondent, there was a misrepresentation, and the categorical approach is so opaque that no reasonable non‑citizen can use it.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan: Suppose the immigration judge said there is no administrative procedure to appeal; would the provision be satisfied?
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan: How is that distinguishable from this case? Because, in this case, there's just as much an error in the first – from the IJ.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas: Is it your argument that the administrative remedies are so complicated that they would always be unavailable?
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer: How, in your opinion, at the risk of repetition, do you get out of this?
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito: Suppose Leocal and the Ninth Circuit decision had not been decided; could your client have moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prior removal order was invalid?
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito: Do you accept the validity of the deportation order?
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan: Is this essentially a misrepresentation case, as described in Ross, so that even if there was an administrative remedy on the books, it wasn’t truly available?
According to Justice Barrett, justice Barrett: Does availability under 1326(d) vary according to the difficulty of the law that underlay the initial conviction?
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts: We will hear argument next in Case 20‑437, United States versus Palomar‑Santiago.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts: A minute to wrap up, Mr. Garcia.
- [1] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 20
- [2] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 23
- [3] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 31
- [4] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 34
- [5] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 37
- [6] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 40
- [7] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 43
- [8] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 46
- [9] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 4
- [10] 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdf, p. 48
What the Court decided
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that a non‑citizen may collaterally attack a removal order under § 1326(d) only if he can show exhaustion of administrative remedies, that the removal proceedings deprived him of judicial review, and that the order was fundamentally unfair, limiting the scope of challenges to removal orders.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 3c5c4e9e17a8e0c9eb18-r1-443db17cf31b1df3.pdforal argument transcript
- a8c60316429f51630a6e-r1-1faec98fee6a7219.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.