The Affirmation of Reinstatement After Illegal Reentry

On May 28, 2017, Miguel Macias Mendoza underwent a court appeal (No. 16-3568) for illegal reentry into the United States. 

Macias, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1976 at the age of six as a lawful permanent resident. In 1990, Macias was caught committing a series of criminal activities including sexual assault, aggravated battery, and burglary. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) instituted a removal proceeding against him, and in 1993, an Immigration Judge ordered his removal from the U.S. back to Mexico. He could not return for five years unless given permission by an Attorney General. 

Macias illegally reentered the U.S. a few weeks after his removal to take care of his injured son in Chicago. He did not receive permission from an Attorney General, and he claimed two boarder control officers allowed him entry across the U.S. border without question. 

After living on American soil for nearly 20 years, Macias was caught by law enforcement for a DUI in 2016. Because Macias was discovered as an illegal immigrant a second time, a deliberation surfaced: should Macias have the right to a full hearing for his at-hand immigration conviction or should he have a reinstatement of his prior removal order from the 1990s? 

A deportation officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed that Macias was subject to reinstatement of the prior removal order from 1990. 

A petition for the claim was created that states “because his reentry was ‘procedurally regular’, he was not subject to reinstatement but was instead entitled to a full hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ).”

On May 31, 2018, the petition was denied for review by the court. The court rejected the reasoning that the immigrant was entitled to a full hearing in front of an IJ rather than being reinstated for the prior removal. 

To learn more, read the full petition by clicking here.

Scroll to Top