The Court vacated the defendant's conviction, finding his two prior removals invalid.
First, the Court held that, because the defendant's 2008 removal proceeding was in absentia, he satisfied the exhaustion and deprivation-of-judicial-review requirements under 1326(d).
The Court also held that, because circuit precedent established California battery was not a categorical crime of violence, the IJ erred in ordering him removed for a crime of domestic violence based on the battery conviction.
Second, the Court held that the defects in the 2008 removal proceeding infected the defendant’s 2011 expedited removal for presenting invalid entry documents. This is new ground.
The Court explained, "[a] person should not be stripped of the important legal entitlements that come with lawful permanent resident status through a legally erroneous decision that he or she had no meaningful opportunity to contest. Among those protections is that lawful permanent residents cannot be removed on an expedited basis." That meant, the 2011 removal was also invalid.
One other point worth mentioning:
In other words, although in 2011 the defendant was arguably removable for being an aggravated felon, because he was not charged with that ground of removability, the removal order was invalid.
One other point worth mentioning:
The government contends that even if Defendant should have been treated as a lawful permanent resident in 2011, he was not prejudiced because he was an aggravated felon, who could have been removed anyway, and who would have been denied discretionary relief, including withdrawal of his application for admission. We reject the government’s contention for a fundamental reason. Because Defendant retained the protections afforded to lawful permanent residents, he was not removable as charged in the 2011 proceedings—he was removed for presenting invalid entry documents. But if he was still a lawful permanent resident, then his entry documents were not invalid. And even if the government might have been able to remove him on other grounds through a formal removal proceeding, his removal on illegitimate grounds is enough to show prejudice.
In other words, although in 2011 the defendant was arguably removable for being an aggravated felon, because he was not charged with that ground of removability, the removal order was invalid.
