WPC* @`CY5_z 1EXUl"M5↽JyZZ*!"O"3ۺmj_̹vJW' XD2 .m0~QSA:J97kE?.Y./@% r(ɽZ$G,3o1^dAX*IQk&(w\b8s,^5kxe9 ^T}8!b(D +kҨV:~k^YDX,[y^fzU%Y ^bQ@9q)kܢl xo;ܥdGG=iX'a%UMu)#V*uv]tM,nx<!9:H|e[k1H:M1ssosm=$*jcDN\]\U~OeK 6Ii_ƛ}# % U/8 0G U:$ 0^ U(.V nT NU@^ w&4*>M mOEffhajN~^UBb  0D(lZU>UFR=T 5 ! 0c*)+L .Y0Tk4]; BBK9B9BC 0N+F+F 0UyFF 0N 0yO 0>P 0P 0QQ 0iR 0S 0S 0^T 0#U 0U 0V 0TW 0W 0X 07Y 0Y 0YZ 0[ 0[ 0\ 0C] 0] 0^ 0_ 0_ 09` 0` 0a 0>gb 0b 0c 0d 0ae 0Cf 0%ghh 02h 0h 02i 0i 0:j 0Y&k 0_kk 0fk 0 Dl0Nm~s 0-u 0v B*xx D/ D+ 0 D/ 0A 06 0E 0:M 0^ 0< 1e!U6U* 1u 72[x 0chHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X<4 9Z+ Courier New ($XOXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(2y$ !X]DXXX    X]DXXX]D=]DXXdd=  0  <6X9`(Courier<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z(Times New Roman {I4 346X?,}backup3|xUTABLE AL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -(#$  0    y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  14    _XEhXXXEhTheremaybesomecaseswheretheagencysviolationofa  petitionersrightswas"soflagrant,andthedifficultyofproving  prejudicesogreat"thatprejudicemaybepresumed,_Loaisiga_,104 \ F.3dat488,butnocourthasappliedthatconcepttothecontext 2 ofthefailuretoadjudicateanapplicationfor212(c)relief.#XEhXXXEh# __ y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  2    _The_IJ_ԀinLuna'sseconddeportationhearingnotedthatbothLuna  andtheINSagreedthattherewere"seriousproblemswiththe  respondent'soriginaldeportationhearing,"because"therespondent \ wasdeportedashavingbeenconvictedoftwocrimesinvolvingmoral 2 turpitude...dwhichwasnotshownintherespondent'scase."d X Specifically,the_IJ_Ԁnotedthat"oneoftheunderlyingcrimes, . burglaryinthethirddegree,isnotnecessarilyacrimeinvolving   moralturpitude,unlessitcanbeshownwhatspecificcrimethe   burglarywasmeanttocommit"andthattheINShadfailedto `  establishitscase.Inaddition,the_IJ_Ԁnotedthat"asamatterof 6   equity,[Luna]testifiedthathedidnotappearincourtbecause  \  hischilddiedimmediatelybeforetheimmigrationhearing...and  2  thereforehisattendancetherewasimpossible."  y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  6    _Undercertainconditions,nonlawyers,including"accredited  representatives"ofapprovednonprofitorganizations,may  representindividualsinremovalproceedings.See8_C.F.R._Ԁ \ 292.1,292.2.\  `&Times New Roman<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular  y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  8    _Duringthehearingonthemotiontodismiss,thedistrictcourt  questionedwhetherthefirstdeportationorder,issuedin1993,  couldserveasabasisfortheindictmentforillegalreentry. \ However,thedistrictcourtdidnotresolvetheissue.Inresponse 2 tothedistrictcourt'squestioningduringthehearing,the X governmentstatedthatitfocusedonthesecondorderof . deportationbecauseitbelievedthatthefirstorderofdeportation   wasdefective.Onappeal,boththegovernmentandthedefendant   continuetofocussolelyonthesecondorderofdeportation, `  raisingnoargumentsregardingthepossiblevalidityofthefirst 6   deportationorderasabasisfortheindictment.Accordingly,our  \  reviewwillfocusonthesecondorderofdeportation. 3 y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  *    ___ԀOftheDistrictofMaine,sittingbydesignation. + y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  15    _TheBIAhasexplainedthat,"asthenegativefactorsgrowmore  serious,itbecomesincumbentuponthealientointroduce  additionaloffsettingfavorableevidence,whichinsomecasesmay \ havetoinvolveunusualoroutstandingequities."Marin,16I.&N. 2 Dec.at585.Asinglecriminalact,dependingontheseriousness X oftheunderlyingconduct,or"asuccessionofcriminalacts,which . togetherestablishapatternofseriouscriminalmisconduct"can   triggerthisheightenedrequirement.Matterof_Buscemi_,19I.&N.   Dec.628,633(BIA1988).Whileevidenceofrehabilitationisone `  factoroftenconsideredinthiscontext,theBIAhasindicatedthat 6   an_IJ_Ԁmustconsiderthecircumstancesfacedbytheapplicantfor  \  212(c)relief,particularlythedifficultiesthatincarceration  2  maypose.SeeInre_Arreguin_ԀDeRodriguez,21I.&N.Dec.38,40   (BIA1995)("Aclearshowingofreformationisnotanabsolute   prerequisitetoafavorableexerciseofdiscretionineverysection d  212(c)applicationinvolvinganalienwithacriminalrecord. :  Section212(c)applicationsinvolvingconvictedaliensmustbe `  evaluatedonacasebycasebasis,withrehabilitationafactorto 6 beconsideredintheexerciseofdiscretion....Werecognize   thedifficultiesanincarceratedalienfacesindemonstrating  convincingeffortstowardsrehabilitation....[_A]ny_Ԁefforts h willbeconsidered,andtheapplicantisnotbarredautomatically > fromdiscretionaryreliefbyherincarceration."(citations d omitted)).(;3$ !X]DXXX    y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  16    _XEhXXXEhIndeed,wehavenotedthatthegrantofdiscretionaryrelieffor  individualswithcriminalconvictions"wasnotrare:intheyears  immediatelyprecedingthe[statutoryrepealof212(c)relieffor \ 'aggravatedfelons'],overhalftheapplicationsweregranted." 2 _Mattis_v.Reno,212F.3d31,33(1stCir.2000).#XEhXXXEh# B y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  7    _dUnderthestatute,adefendantmaychallengethevalidityofa  deportationorderthatservesasthebasisforanindictmentfor  illegalreentry.Seeinfra,PartIII(A)(describing8U.S.C. \ XEhXXXEh#XEhXXXEh#1326(d)).d  y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  5    _XEhXXXEh_AEDPA_Ԁamended_INA_Ԁ212(c)toprecludereliefforimmigrants  facingdeportationduetoan"aggravatedfelony."_IIRIRA_  1 completelyrepealed212(c)andcreatedanewformof  discretionaryrelief,"cancellationofremoval,"whichalsowasnot  availableforimmigrantswith"aggravatedfelony"convictions.See \ _INA_Ԁ240A,8U.S.C.1229b(a).#XEhXXXEh#[  [  [   J y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  12    _Wenotedthatthe_IJ_Ԁhadrepeatedlyadvised_Loaisiga_Ԁofhisright  toselfobtainedcounselandhadgivenhimthreeweekstoseekan  attorneypriortohisdeportationhearing.See_Loaisiga_,104F.3d \ at486.Inlightofthosefacts,werejected_Loaisiga_'sclaimthat 2 the_IJ_Ԁviolateddueprocessbyfailingtoadvise_Loaisiga_Ԁagainof X hisrighttocounselatthebeginningofthehearing.Id. . ("[_A]bsent_Ԁsomesignalfrom_Loaisiga_Ԁsuchasaplausiblerequest   forafurtherdelaywedonotthinkthatitwasevenclosetoa   dueprocessviolationfortheimmigrationjudgetomoveontothe `  merits.").However,wedidnotdecidewhether"dueprocess 6   requiredthat_Loaisiga_Ԁbeadvisedagainatthecloseofthe[]  \  hearingofhisrighttoobtainhisowncounselforanappeal."Id.  2  at487(emphasisinoriginal)(notingthat"arespondent's   inclinationtoappealmightbeaffectedbybeingtold(again)that   hecouldberepresentedbycounsel"butconcludingthat"this d  interestingissueneednotbedecidedhere"). S y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  13    _XEhXXXEhSeed8_C.F.R._Ԁ1240.11(a)(2)("Theimmigrationjudgeshallinform  thealienofhisorherapparenteligibilitytoapplyforanyof  thebenefits[ofrelieffromdeportation]enumeratedinthis \ chapterandshallaffordthealienanopportunitytomakean 2 applicationduringthehearing.")(emphasisadded)#XEhXXXEh#dXEhXXXEh;8_C.F.R._Ԁ X 242.17(a)(amended1998)("Theimmigrationjudgeshallinformthe . respondentofhisorherapparenteligibilitytoapplyforanyof   thebenefitsenumeratedinthisparagraphandshallaffordthe   respondentanopportunitytomakeapplicationthereforduringthe `  hearing.");8_C.F.R._Ԁ212.3(e)("Anapplicationfortheexercise 6   ofdiscretionundersection212(c)oftheActmaybe...  \  submittedinproceedingsbeforeanImmigrationJudge....Such  2  applicationshallbeadjudicatedbytheImmigrationJudge.")   (emphasisadded).#XEhXXXEh# d A y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  1    _Weusetheterms"removal"and"deportation"interchangeablyin  thisopinion.  y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  4    _DecisionsbytheAttorneyGeneralinimmigrationproceedingsare  bindingontheBoardofImmigrationAppealsandImmigrationJudges.  See8_C.F.R._Ԁ1003.1(g)(statingthat"decisionsoftheAttorney \ General...shallbebinding...[and]shallserveas 2 precedentsinallproceedingsinvolvingthesameissueorissues").(O$*+ (_2623  ..  y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  11    _Werejectthegovernment'ssuggestionthatourprecedent  interpretingMendozaLopezresolvesthisissue.XEhXXXEhPriortothe  enactmentof1326(d),weappliedMendozaLopezandheldthat \ defendantswhodeliberatelyandvoluntarilywithdrewtheirrightto 2 administrativelyappealan_IJ_'sdecisiontotheBIAunderthe X adviceofcounselcannotshowthattheyweredeprivedofmeaningful . judicialreview.SeeUnitedStatesv.Smith,36F.3d128,13031   (1stCir.1994)(nodeprivationofmeaningfulreviewwhere   defendantunderadviceofcounselsignedamotionwithdrawinghis `  appealandprovidednoevidencethathiswaiverwasinvoluntary); 6   UnitedStatesv.Smith,14F.3d662,66465(1stCir.1994)(no  \  deprivationofmeaningfulreviewwheredefendantunderadviceof  2  counselfiledanappealbutthenlatervoluntarilywithdrewhis   appeal);UnitedStatesv.Vieira_Candelario_,6F.3d12,15(1st   Cir.1993)(same).Thesecasesaredistinguishablefromthe d  instantcasebecausethedefendantsinthosecases,unlikeLuna, :  chose,ontheadviceoflegalcounsel,toaffirmativelyabandon `  theirappeals.See_Lepore_,304F.Supp.2dat195(discussing 6 Y cases).#XEhXXXEhe#*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5        2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKq<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    `:Footnote RefFootnote Reference4go2Keyboard Kq<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS  & y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  3    _Former212(c)providedthat"[_a]liens_Ԁlawfullyadmittedfor  permanentresidencewhotemporarilyproceededabroadvoluntarily  andnotunderanorderofdeportation,andwhoarereturningtoa \ lawful_unrelinquished_Ԁdomicileofsevenconsecutiveyears,maybe 2 admittedinthediscretionoftheAttorneyGeneral....[_T]his_ X  subsectionshallnotapplytoanalienwhohasbeenconvictedof  oneormoreaggravatedfeloniesandhasservedforsuchfelonyor  feloniesatermofimprisonmentofatleast5years."8U.S.C. \ 1182(c)(repealed1996).Byitsterms,thestatuteappearsto 2 haveappliedonlytolawfulpermanentresidents"returning"tothe X UnitedStatesandfacingexclusion.However,thestatutehasbeen . interpretedtobeapplicabletoanylawfulpermanentresident,   facingexclusionordeportation,whometitseligibility   requirements.See_Gomes_v.Ashcroft,311F.3d43,4445(1stCir. `  2002).  y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  18    _Alongwiththeseconvictions,Luna'scriminalhistorypriortohis  seconddeportationincludesconvictionsforpossessionofastolen  vehicleandburglary.<:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kq<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7f(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?r%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7g(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d  y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  10    _Theavailabilityofhabeasreviewwasacontestedissueatthe  timeofLuna'sdeportationproceedings._AEDPA_Ԁand_IIRIRA_Ԁamended  the_INA_Ԁtostatutorilybarpeoplewithcertaincriminalconvictions \ fromseekingreviewoftheirfinalordersofremovalthrougha 2 petitionforreviewtothecourtsofappeals.See8U.S.C. X 1252(a)(2)(c)("[_N]o_Ԁcourtshallhavejurisdictiontoreviewany . finalorderofremovalagainstanalienwhoisremovablebyreason   ofhavingcommittedacriminaloffense[undercertainsectionsof   the_INA_]....")(amended2005).DuringthetimeofLuna's `  deportationproceedings,thegovernmentwasadvancingtheargument 6   thatnocourthadjurisdictionoversuchcases,evenifthe  \  individualfiledawritofhabeascorpus.TheSupremeCourt  2  eventuallyrejectedthisargument.SeeSt._Cyr_,533U.S.at314   (concludingthatprovisionsbarringcertainpeoplefrompursuing   directreviewoftheirordersofremovaldonotapplytohabeas d  reviewunder28U.S.C.2241).d)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7i(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?r%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7g(X75+ ` hp x 5  d)2dxd0KS.SampleKq<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKq<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  89:;<=>? 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)si) n y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  17    _Thedefendant,throughcounsel,didnotrequesttosubmitany  additionalevidenceinsupportofhisprejudiceargument.(;3$2#  0  .3  0    y$XEhXXX  XEhXXXEh=EhXXdd=  9    _XEhXXXEhUnder8U.S.C.1326(d)(1),adefendantwhoseekstochallenge  thevalidityofhisdeportationordermusthaveexhaustedthe  administrativeremediesduringhisremovalproceedingsorshowthat \ anappropriateexceptionapplies.#XEhXXXEh#ԀSeeUnitedStatesv._Sosa_,387 2 F.3d131,13637(2dCir.2004)(explainingthescopeofthe8 X U.S.C.1326(d)(1)requirement);_Lepore_,304F.Supp.2dat192 . Y (same).WeagreewiththepartiesandthedistrictcourtthatLuna  metthisrequirementbyappealingthe_IJ_'sdecisiontotheBIAin  hiscase.SeeXEhXXXEhUnitedStatesv.Perez,330F.3d97,10001(2dCir. \ 2003)(indicatingthatanappealofan_IJ_'sdecisionoradenialof 2 amotiontoreopentotheBIAwillsatisfy8U.S.C.1326(d)(1)).#XEhXXXEhd# !XEhXXX  _TRXܐ3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !      XXXXEh 'X XUr T@ UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals# XX '#   3X XFortheFirstCircuit# XX 3# #XEhXX X#  A') ` dE< ` A   No.051122 K  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  G  @&Appellee,   @tt)v. O  @hh#_DAGOBERTO_ԀLUNA, K  @ Defendant,Appellant.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8   FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODE_ISLAND_ ^ @@ [Hon.MaryM._Lisi_,U.S.DistrictJudge]   @@*A') ` dE<;` A < @@'Before !q @@((Lipez,CircuitJudge,  Coffin,SeniorCircuitJudge,   andCarter,d #  *      dSeniorDistrictJudge@@((. y! A') ` dE<!` A !K$     EdwardC.Roy,AssistantFederalPublicDefender,for "0& appellant. #'   RobertClark_Corrente_,UnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom $( DonaldC._Lockhart_andLuisM._Matos_,AssistantUnitedStates b% ) Attorneys,wereonbrief,forappellee. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $  SI)n$. @38756@S_February9,2006 )D%0 _ RHC*&1" @38756 @ R ," )n$2 ? ,Ї     8EhXXdd8*,X` XX**! ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thiscaserequiresustoanalyze  thestatutoryprovision(8U.S.C.1326(d))thatdefinesthe x circumstancesunderwhichadefendantchargedwithillegally $t reenteringtheUnitedStatesafterdeportationmaycollaterally   attackthevalidityoftheremovalorder._( #  1      _ԀThedefendant, |  _Dagoberto_ԀLuna,appealsfromthedistrictcourt'sdenialofhis ( x  motiontodismisshisindictmentforillegalreentry.Thedistrict $  courtheldthatthedefendantdidnotmeettherequirementsof   1326(d).Weaffirm. ,|    I. (   A.Luna'sBackgroundandDeportationProceedings     ` Luna,acitizenoftheDominicanRepublic,enteredthe h UnitedStatesasa5dayoldlawfulpermanentresidentin1973. d Hisimmediatefamilymembers,includinghismother,father,and  siblings,allliveintheUnitedStates.Lunaspentmostofhis l childhoodinRhodeIsland,whereheattendedschooluntilthed9thd h grade.Sincethattime,hehaslivedinNewYorkandRhodeIsland.    ` OnApril9,1993,atage20,Lunawasordereddeported p!" afterhewasconvictedinstatecourtofthirddegreegrand #l$ larceny.HereturnedtotheUnitedStatesatsomepoint $ & thereafter.OnJanuary22,1996,Lunadpledguiltydinstatecourt t&!( toseconddegreeassault.Hewassentencedtothreetosixyears  (p#* imprisonment.Whilehewasservinghissentence,theImmigration  andNaturalizationService("INS")issuedanOrdertoShowCause \ chargingthatLunawasd_deportable_donseveralgrounds,includinghis X assaultconvictionandhispreviousdeportationorderandreentry.   Given"seriousproblems"regardingthevalidityoftheprevious `  deportationorder, #  2      ׀theImmigrationJudge("_IJ_")foundthatLuna  \  was_deportable_Ԁonthesolegroundofbeinganalienconvictedofan   aggravatedfelony,seeImmigrationandNationalityAct("_INA_") d  237(a)(2)(A)(iii),8U.S.C.1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)(formerly_INA_ `  241(a)(2)(A)(iii),8U.S.C.1251(_redesignated_Ԁ1996)),basedon   hisseconddegreeassaultconviction. h  ` Duringhishearingbeforethe_IJ_,Lunaappliedfor d discretionaryrelief,requestingawaiverofdeportationunder  former_INA_Ԁ212(c).8U.S.C.1182(c)(repealed1996)._`n  #  3      _ԀThe_IJ_ l didnotconsiderthemeritsofLuna'sapplicationforrelief,  statinginhisoraldecisionthat"therespondentisstatutorily \ barredfromthisandanyotherformsofrelieffromdeportation" X undertheAttorneyGeneral'sdecisionin_In_Ԁre_Soriano_,21I.&N.   Dec.516(BIA1996,A.G.1997).*  #  4      ׀ `   ` In_Soriano_,theAttorneyGeneraldeterminedthatrecent  \  statutoryamendmentstothe_INA_Ԁpreventedallindividualswith   "aggravatedfelony"convictionsinremovalproceedingsfrom d  obtainingdiscretionaryrelieffromdeportation.Seeid.at533 `  40;seealsoAntiTerrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996   ("_AEDPA_"),Pub.L.No.104132,110Stat.1214(1996)(codifiedin h varioustitles);IllegalImmigrationReformandImmigrant d ResponsibilityActof1996("_IIRIRA_"),Pub.L.No.104208,110  Stat.3009(1996)(codifiedinvarioustitles)._$ #  5      _ԀAlthoughLuna l pledguiltytoseconddegreeassaultbeforetherelevantprovisions  of_AEDPA_Ԁand_IIRIRA_Ԁwentintoeffect,the_IJ_Ԁconcludedthat,under \ _Soriano_,Lunacouldnotapplyfordiscretionaryrelief. X  ` Luna,whowasrepresentedbyanonlawyer"accredited   representative,"_ #  6      _Ԁappealedthe_IJ_ԀdecisiontotheBoardof `  ImmigrationAppeals("BIA").OnJune10,1998,theBIAaffirmed,  \  alsorelyingon_Soriano_,tellingLunathathewas"statutorily   ineligiblefor[212(c)]relief."Lunadidnotappealthe d  agency'sdecisioninfederalcourt.OnNovember8,1999,hewas `  deportedforasecondtime.    B.St._Cyr_andEligibilityfor_INA_Ԁ212(c)Relief  h  ` In2001,theSupremeCourtcorrectedtheAttorney 0 General'smisapplicationoflaw.SeeINSv.St._Cyr_,533U.S.289 , (2001).TheSupremeCourtemphasizedthat"theclassofaliens  whosecontinuedresidenceinthiscountryhasdependedontheir 4 eligibilityfor212(c)reliefisextremelylarge,"andthatthe 0 retroactiverepealofsuchrelief"wouldsurelybecontraryto   familiarconsiderationsoffairnotice,reasonablereliance,and 8!" settledexpectations."Id.at29596,323(citationsandinternal "4$ quotationmarksomitted).TheCourtconcludedthattherepealof  212(c)reliefdidnotapplyretroactivelytoindividualswhohad \ pledguiltytoacriminalchargepriortotheeffectivedateofthe X repeal.Id.at326.    ` AfterSt._Cyr_wasdecided,thegovernmentchangedits `  positionontheavailabilityof212(c)reliefforindividualswho  \  pledguiltyornolocontenderetocrimesbeforetheeffectivedate   of_AEDPA_Ԁand_IRRIRA_.In2004,thegovernmentimplemented d  proceduresforimmigrantstoreopentheirremovalcasesinlightof `  St._Cyr_.See8_C.F.R._Ԁ1003.44.However,theprocedureswerenot   availableforimmigrantswhohadalready"departed"thecountry. h See8_C.F.R._Ԁ1003.44(k). d  C.Luna'sIndictmentforReentryandtheDistrictCourtDecision    ` Atsomepointafterhisseconddeportation,Luna  reenteredtheUnitedStates.OnNovember21,2003,Lunawas 4 indictedforillegallyreenteringtheUnitedStateswithoutthe 0 expresspermissionoftheAttorneyGeneral,inviolationof8   U.S.C.1326(a)and(b)(2).Hefiledamotiontodismissthe 8!"  indictment,pursuantto8U.S.C.1326(d),# #  7      ׀arguingthathis "4$ deportationwasfundamentallyunfairandthuscouldnotserveas  thebasisforhisillegalreentryindictment. #  8       \   ` InitsMemorandumandDecisionofApril13,2004("April X 13Decision"),thedistrictcourtdeniedLuna'smotiontodismiss,   holdingthathefailedtoestablish,asrequiredby8U.S.C. `  1326(d)(3),thatthe_IJ_'sfailuretoadjudicatehis212(c)  \  applicationprejudicedhim.Lunafiledamotionaskingthe   districtcourttoreconsider.OnJune1,2004,thedistrictcourt d  issuedasecondMemorandumandDecision("June1Decision")again `  denyingthemotiontodismiss.Thecourtheldthat,inadditionto   Lunasfailuretodemonstrateprejudice,Lunaalsofailedto h establishtherequirementunder8U.S.C.1326(d)(2)thathis d underlyingdeportationproceedingsimproperlydeprivedhimof  judicialreview.Lunaappealed. l   III.  h  6 ` Theunderlyingfactsarenotindispute,andwereview 0 thedistrictcourt'slegalconclusionsdenovo.SeeUnitedStates   v._Loaisiga_,104F.3d484,486(1stCir.1997)(applyingdenovo  standardofreviewtodistrictcourt'sdecisiontograntmotionto \ dismissanindictmentforillegalreentryunderapriorversionof X 8U.S.C.1326).    ` Thegovernmentarguesthatweshouldreviewthedistrict `  court'sprejudicedeterminationforclearerror.Whilewereview  \  factualfindingsunderaclearerrorstandard,theprejudice   analysisinthiscaseinvolvestheapplicationoflawtoundisputed d  factsandispartofaninquirytodeterminewhetherthedefendant `  hasestablishedthefundamentalunfairnessofhisdeportation   hearing.Underthesecircumstances,weagreewithoursister h circuitsthatadistrictcourt'sdeterminationofwhethera d defendanthasestablishedprejudicepursuantto8U.S.C.  1326(d)(3)issubjecttodenovoreview.XEhXXXEhSeeUnitedStatesv. l Scott,394F.3d111,11617(2dCir.2005)(applyingdenovoreview h todistrictcourt'sdeterminationofwhetherdefendanthas  establishedprejudiceunder8U.S.C.1326(d)(3));UnitedStates p  v.AguirreTello,353F.3d1199,1204(10thCir.2004)(enbanc) !l" (same);#XEhXXXEh;#XEhXXXEhUnitedStatesv._Ubaldo_Ԅ_Figueroa_,364F.3d1042,1047#XEhXXXEh=#XEhXXXEhԀ(9th "$ Cir.2003)(same).#XEhXXXEhH>#Ԁ t$&  A.MendozaLopezand8U.S.C.1326   &p!(  ` Under8U.S.C.1326(a),itisacrimeforanindividual '8#* whohasbeendeported,removed,excluded,ordeniedadmissionto )$, entertheUnitedStatesunlessheorshehasthepriorapprovalof @+&. theAttorneyGeneralorshowsthatnosuchapprovalwasneeded.  Section1326(b)specifiesenhancedpenaltiesforillegalreentry \ basedontheperson'scriminalhistory. X  ` InUnitedStatesv.MendozaLopez,481U.S.828(1987),   theSupremeCourtheldthatapersonwhoisprosecutedforillegal `  reentrybasedonapreviousorderofdeportationmusthave  \  meaningfulreviewofthevalidityofhisorherdeportationorder.   ThedefendantsinMendozaLopez,havingbeenindictedforillegally d  reenteringtheUnitedStates,arguedthattheirprevious `  deportationproceedingswerefundamentallyunfairbecausethe_IJ_   hadfailedtoinformthemadequatelyoftheireligibilityfor h "suspensionofdeportation,"aformofdiscretionaryrelief.See d id.at83132.TheSupremeCourtconcludedthatthedefendants'  motionstodismisstheirindictmentsshouldbegrantedbecausethey l hadbeen"deprivedoftheirrightstoappeal[theirremoval h orders],andofanybasistoappealsincetheonlyrelief[from  deportation]forwhichtheywouldhavebeeneligiblewasnot p  adequatelyexplainedtothem."Id.at842.AstheCourtexplained, !l" "whereadeterminationmadeinanadministrativeproceedingisto "$ playacriticalroleinthesubsequentimpositionofacriminal t$& sanction,theremustbesomemeaningfulreviewofthe  &p!( administrativeproceeding."Id.at83738(emphasisinoriginal). '#*  ` CongressessentiallycodifiedtheMendozaLopezdecision x)$, as8U.S.C.1326(d).SeeUnitedStatesv.Wilson,316F.3d506, $+t&. 515n.1(4thCir.2003)(_Motz_,J.,concurring)(discussingthe  legislativehistoryof1326(d)).Section1326(d)provides: \ ` 0 ` Inacriminalproceedingunderthissection, X analienmaynotchallengethevalidityofthe . deportationorder...unlessthealien   demonstratesthat ` x` x 0 ` 0 ` x` x(1)thealienexhaustedany `  administrativeremediesthatmayhave 6   beenavailabletoseekreliefagainst  \  theorder;  2  (2)thedeportationproceedingsat   whichtheorderwasissuedimproperly   deprivedthealienoftheopportunity d  forjudicialreview;and :  (3)theentryoftheorderwas `  fundamentallyunfair.6 x x ` ,I:ITheseelementsareintheconjunctive;therefore,adefendantmust  satisfyallofthemtosuccessfullyattackhisremovalorder.See > UnitedStatesv.Roque_Espinoza_,338F.3d724,728(7thCir.2003); : Wilson,316F.3dat509;UnitedStatesv.FernandezAntonia,278  F.3d150,157(2dCir.2002);UnitedStatesv._Lepore_,304F.Supp. B 2d183,186(D.Mass.2004). >  B.Applicationof 1326(d)toLunasCase    ` Theinterpretationofthisstatutepresentsuswith b ! severaldifficultissuesoffirstimpression.Whiletheparties "^# agreethatLunahasmettheadministrativeexhaustionrequirement # % of8U.S.C.1326(d)(1),_| #  9      _ԀtheydisagreeaboutwhetherLunahasmet f% ' theotherstatutoryrequirements.Thegovernmentarguesthatwe  canaffirmthedistrictcourt'sorderoneitherofitsstated \ grounds!thatLunawasnotdeprivedofjudicialreviewunder X 1326(d)(2)orthatLunahasnotestablishedprejudiceaspartof   thefundamentalunfairnessinquiryunder1326(d)(3).The `  governmentalsoarguesthat,alternatively,wecanaffirmthe  \  districtcourt'sorderbecausethedefendantfailedtoestablish   thattheerrorsinhishearing,evenifprejudicial,renderedhis d  deportationorderfundamentallyunfairunder1326(d)(3).Luna `  arguesthathemeetsallthestatutoryrequirements.Weaddress   theseargumentsanddiscussthesecondandthirdprongsof h 1326(d).However,becauseweconcludethatLunahasnot d establishedprejudiceunder8U.S.C.1326(d)(3),weneednot  ultimatelyresolveallthestatutoryissues. l  ` 1.Section1326(d)(2):DeprivationofJudicialReview h  ` Under8U.S.C.1326(d)(2),adefendantwhoseeksto  challengethevalidityofhisdeportationordermustdemonstrate p  that"thedeportationproceedingsatwhichtheorderwasissued !l" improperlydeprivedthealienoftheopportunityforjudicial "$ review."InitsJune1Decision,thedistrictcourtheldthatLuna t$& didnotmeetthisrequirementbecausehehadanopportunityfor  &p!( T@  T  T  judicialreviewawritofhabeascorpusbutfailedtopursue  it._e #  10      _ԀLunaarguesthatthe_IJ_ԀandtheBIAeffectivelydeprivedhim \ ofjudicialreviewbyfailingtoproperlyinformhimofhis X eligibilityforrelief,adjudicatehisapplicationforrelief,or   informhimofanyrighttoappeal. `  Ѐ ` Wehavenotpreviouslyinterpreted1326(d)(2)._. #  11      _Ԁ  \  However,MendozaLopezprovidessomeguidance.TheSupremeCourt  heldthatan_IJ_'sfailuretoadequatelyexplaintheavailabilityof \ relief,resultinginanuninformedwaiveroftherighttoappeal, X wasanerrorthatdeprivedtheindividualsinthatcaseoftheir   opportunityforjudicialreview.MendozaLopez,481U.S.at842. `  Otherthanthisspecificholding,however,theSupremeCourthas  \  declinedtofurther"enumeratewhichproceduralerrorsareso   fundamentalthattheymayfunctionallydeprivethealienof d  judicialreview."Seeid.at839n.17.XEhXXXEh `  #XEhXXXEh"^# ` XEhXXXEhInthiscase,thegovernmentessentiallyarguesthat,as   thedistrictcourtconcluded,the#XEhXXXEh^#Ԁavailabilityofjudicialreview h throughawritofhabeascorpusisfataltothedefendant'sclaim d under1326(d)(2).However,theconclusionsofthefewcourts  thathaveconsideredthisargumenthavenotbeenuniform.XEhXXXEhCompare l _Sosa_,387F.3dat137("[_T]he_Ԁfactthat[achancetofileahabeas h petition]technicallyexisteddoesnotnecessarilymeanthat[the  defendant]hadan'opportunityforjudicialreview'withinthe p  meaningofSection1326(d)(2).")andUnitedStatesv.#XEhXXXEhR`#XEhXXXEhCopeland,376 !l" F.3d61,68(2dCir.2004)(notingthat"[_i]n_ԀMendozaLopezitself, "$ habeasreviewwasapparentlyavailabletothealiens,yettheCourt t$& heldthattheyweredeprivedofjudicialreview")#XEhXXXEhAb#XEhXXXEhԀwith#XEhXXXEhc#Roque  &p!( _Espinoza_,338F.3dat729("Eventhough[thedefendant]mayhave '#* hadgoodreasonforthinkingthathewasnoteligiblefor x)$, Ur U  U  discretionaryrelieffromremoval,becausethe_IJ_Ԁhadsoinformed  him,heshouldhaverealizedthatavenuesofjudicialreviewwere \ availabletohim.").XEhXXXEhԀ#XEhXXXEhf# X  ` Giventheuncertaintyinthelawonthisissue,weturn   to1326(d)(3).Because,asweexplainbelow,weconcludethat `  Lunahasnotestablishedprejudice,weneednotdecidewhether,  \  under1326(d)(2),theerrorsinLuna'scasefunctionallydeprived   himofjudicialreviewdespitetheavailabilityofhabeasreview. d   ` 2.Section1326(d)(3):FundamentalUnfairness  `   ` Adefendantwhoseekstochallengethevalidityofhis   deportationordermustdemonstratethat"theentryoftheorderwas h fundamentallyunfair."8U.S.C.1326(d)(3).Underthisprong, d courtsuniformlyrequireashowingofproceduralerrorand  prejudice.XEhXXXEhSee,e.g.,AguirreTello,353F.3dat120708;Perez, l 330F.3dat10304;_Ubaldo_Ԅ_Figueroa_,364F.3dat1050#XEhXXXEhi#XEhXXXEh;K+ ` hp x ,X` XKWilson,316 h F.3dat_510.#XEhXXXEhj#___     ` Courtsdisagree,however,onwhattypeofprocedural p  error,ifprejudicial,wouldresultinafundamentallyunfair !l" deportationorderunderthestatute.XEhXXXEhԀTheThird,Fourth,andFifth "$ Circuitshaveheldthat1326(d)(3)requiresashowingthatthe t$& errorinthedeportationhearinghasresultedinadeprivationof  &p!( alibertyorpropertyinterest.#XEhXXXEhl#ԀSeeUnitedStatesv.Torres,383 '#* F.3d92,103(3rdCir.2004);Wilson,316F.3dat510;United x)$, Statesv.LopezOrtiz,313F.3d225,230(5thCir.2002).These $+t&. courtshaverejectedtheargumentthatanagency'sfailureto  adequatelyinformanimmigrantofhisorhereligibilityfor \ 212(c)reliefcanestablishfundamentalunfairness,becausean X applicanthasnolibertyorpropertyinterestindiscretionary   relief.SeeTorres,383F.3dat103("[_B]ecause_Ԁdiscretionary `  reliefisnecessarilyamatterofgraceratherthanofright,  \  aliensdonothaveadueprocesslibertyinterestinconsideration   forsuchrelief.");Wilson,316F.3dat510("[_S]ection_Ԁ212(c)does d  notcreateanentitlement,butisrathercompletelydiscretionary `  innature.");LopezOrtiz,313F.3dat230("Becauseeligibility   for212(c)reliefisnotalibertyorpropertyinterest h warrantingdueprocessprotection,weholdthattheImmigration d Judge'serrorinfailingtoexplainLopezOrtiz'seligibilitydoes  notrisetotheleveloffundamental_unfairness.").___ l    ` TheSecondandNinthCircuitshavetakenadifferent h approach.Thesecourtshaveheldthatanagency'sviolationofthe  proceduralprotectionsinitsstatuteorregulations,if p  prejudicialtothepersonfacingdeportation,candemonstrate !l" fundamentalunfairnessunder8U.S.C.1326(d)(3).SeeCopeland, "$ 376F.3dat7173XEhXXXEh;#XEhXXXEh#v#_Ubaldo_Ԅ_Figueroa_,364F.3dat1042.They t$& conclude,therefore,thatanagency'sfailuretoadequatelyinform  &p!( animmigrantofhisorhereligibilityfor212(c)relief,if '#* prejudicial,canrenderthedeportationfundamentallyunfair.See x)$, Copeland,376F.3dat72(XEhXXXEh"Thedecisionsholdingthatafailureto $+t&. informanalienaboutSection212(c)reliefcannotbeafundamental  errorcollapse[the]distinction[betweenarighttoseekrelief \ andtherighttothatreliefitself]....Theissue,therefore, X isnotwhetherSection212(c)reliefisconstitutionallymandated,   butwhetheradenialofanestablishedright[underagency `  regulations]tobeinformedofthepossibilityofsuchreliefcan,  \  ifprejudicial,beafundamentalproceduralerror.")#XEhXXXEhx#;_Ubaldo_Ԅ   _Figueroa_,364F.3dat1042("Therequirementthatthe_IJ_Ԁinforman d  alienofhisorherabilitytoapplyforrelieffromremovalis `  'mandatory,'and'failuretosoinformthealien[ofhisorher   eligibilityforrelieffromremoval]isadenialofdueprocess h thatinvalidatestheunderlyingdeportationproceedings.'") d (quotingUnitedStatesv._Muro_Ԅ_Inclan_,249F.3d1180,1183(9th  Cir.2001)). l    ` Althoughwehavenotinterpreted1326(d)(3),wehave h analyzedwhetheradeportationorderwas"fundamentallyflawed"in  thecontextofadefendant'schallengetohisindictmentfor p  illegalreentryafterMendozaLopez._Loaisiga_,104F.3dat48485. !l" Thedefendantin_Loaisiga_claimedthathewasnotadequately "$ advisedofhisrighttoselfobtainedcounsel.Id.Westatedthat t$& wedwould"assumewithoutdecidingthatitwouldbeafundamental  &p!( flawunderMendozaLopeztofailtoadviseonethreatenedwith '#* deportationofhisstatutoryrighttoselfobtainedcounsel."dId. x)$, at486.However,wefoundthatthe_IJ_Ԁcompliedwithallrelevant $+t&. statutoryandregulatoryrequirements.Seeid.at48586.Wethen  statedthat"ithasbeenleftprimarilytoCongressandtoINS \ regulationstodictatethecourseofproceedingswhichboth X bodieshavedoneinsomedetail....Courtsnormallyrequire   nothingmoreinthewayofproceduralprotection,excepttoprevent `  flagrantabusesnormallythoserisingtothelevelofdue  \  processviolations."Id.at486(emphasisinoriginal).Having   foundnostatutoryorregulatoryviolations,weaskedwhetherthe d  _IJ_Ԁviolatedthedefendant'sconstitutionalrights. `     ` Wedidnotresolvealloftheconstitutionalissues,   however.% #  12      ׀Weheldthat,"foracollateralattackonanowfinal h deportationorder,thedefendantmustshowprejudice."Id.at487 d (emphasisinoriginal).Because_Loaisiga_Ԁhadnotdemonstrated  prejudice,weheldthathecouldnotcollaterallyattackthe l validityofhisdeportationorder. h    ` Inthiscase,the_IJ_ԀfailedtoinformLunaofhis  eligibilityfor212(c)relief,providehimwithanopportunityto \ applyforthatrelief,oradjudicatehisapplicationforrelief.& #  13      ׀ X Thegovernmentarguesthattheerrorsdonotrendertheentryof   thedeportationorderfundamentallyunfairunder8U.S.C. `  1326(d)(3).However,aswasthecasein_Loaisiga_,wedonothave  \  toresolvethequestionofwhethertheagency'serrorsinthiscase   would,ifprejudicial,renderthedeportationproceedings d  fundamentallyunfair.Weagreewiththedistrictcourt'sholding `  thatLunahasnotdemonstratedprejudice.      ` Asdiscussedabove,thefactsofthiscaseare h undisputed,andwereviewdenovothedistrictcourt's d determinationthatLunahasfailedtoestablishprejudice.The  standardforprejudiceinthiscontextis"areasonablelikelihood l thattheresultwouldhavebeendifferentiftheerrorinthe h deportationproceedinghadnotoccurred._Loaisiga_,104F.3dat  487._ #  14      _ԀInotherwords,thedefendantmustshowthat,ifthe_IJ_Ԁhad  adjudicatedhis212(c)application,thereisareasonable \ likelihoodthathewouldhavereceivedrelieffromdeportation. X    ` Giventheundisputedfactualfindingsofthedistrict   court,wethereforemustconsiderhowthe_IJ_Ԁitselfwouldconsider `  thesefactorswhenadjudicatinga212(c)waiverapplication.In  \  itsdecisions,theagencyhas"developedcriteria,comparableto   commonlawrules,fordecidingwhendeportationisappropriate." d  St._Cyr_,533U.S.at295n.5(citingMatterofMarin,16I.&N. `  Dec.581(BIA1978)).Thesecriteriahaveincluded"the   seriousnessoftheoffense,evidenceofeitherrehabilitationor h recidivism,thedurationofthealien'sresidence,theimpactof d deportationonthefamily,thenumberofcitizensinthefamily,  andthecharacterofanyserviceintheArmedForces."Id.Other l factorsincludearrivalintheUnitedStatesasachild,historyof h employment,propertyorbusinessties,communityservice,and  evidenceofgoodcharacter.Marin,16I.&N.Dec.at58485. p  Afternotingallthefactorsinanindividual'scase,an_IJ_Ԁ"must !l" balancetheadversefactorsevidencinganalien'sundesirability. "$ ..withthesocialandhumaneconsiderationspresentedinhis t$& behalf."Id.at584.  &p!(    ` Individualswithparticularlylengthyorviolentcriminal  historiesaregenerallyrequiredtoshowparticularlystrong \ countervailingequitiesorrehabilitationtoobtain212(c) X relief.  #  15      ׀SeeScott,394F.3dat12021.However,criminalhistory   isnotapersebartorelief._" #  16      _ԀSee_Lepore_,304F.Supp.2dat199 `  ("Itisimportanttorememberthat,bydefinition,'aggravated  \  felons'areeligibleforrelief,sothefactthat[anapplicantfor   212(c)relief]isaconvictedcriminalcannotbe_dispositive_."). d  Furthermore,onlycriminalhistorythatoccurredpriortothe  challengeddeportationhearingshouldbeconsideredwhenassessing \ prejudiceinthe1326(d)context.SeeScott,394F.3dat118 X ("[Section1326(d)(3)]sfocusonthe'entry'oftheordersuggests   atemporallimitationonthedistrictcourtsinquiry.Inother `  words,thestatuteitselfindicatesthat...dtheonlypertinent  \  issueiswhetherentryofthedeportationdorder...prejudiced   [thedefendant]regardlessof[thedefendant]spotential d  _deportability_Ԁforsomelatercrimes.). `     ` Becauseofthemultitudeoffactorsinvolvedinthis   inquiry,the [_r]esolution_ԀoftheprejudiceissueintheSection h 1326(d)(3)contextissomewhatakintoatrialwithinatrial... d .Thecourtmustfirstobtainallofthefactsrelevanttothe  particularalienandthenapplystandardsestablishedunderSection l 212(c)tothosefacts....Copeland,376F.3dat7374. h    ` Inthiscase,thedistrictcourtheardargumentsonthe  motiontodismissandconsideredtheentirerecord.u #  17      ׀Thedistrict p  courtnotedsixfactorsthatcouldweighinfavorofLunascase, !l" includingthat(1)overfiftypercentofthosewhoapplyfor "$ 212(c)reliefaregrantedsuchrelief;(2)defendantswithfelony t$& recordsareeligiblefor212(c)waivers;(3)Lunawasabusedas  &p!( achildfortenyears,(4)mostofLuna'sfamilymembers,including '#* hisparentsandfivesiblings,werepresentintheUnitedStatesat  thetimeofhisdeportationhearing;(5)Lunahadanopportunityto \ rehabilitatehimselfinprison;and(6)Lunahaslivedinthe X UnitedStatesforthemajorityofhislife.      ` Thedistrictcourtthenconsideredthreefactorsweighing `  againstLunascase,includingthat(1)LunareturnedtotheUnited  \  Statesindefianceofacourtorder(referencingLuna'sfirst   deportationhearingandreentry);(2)Lunaadmittedtoconvictions d  forgrandlarcenyandassault(forthebrutalassaultofatwelve `  yearoldchild)inhisdeportationhearingsa #  18      ׀and(3)Luna'slack   ofspecificemploymenthistory.ThecourtconcludedthatLuna h failedtoestablishprejudice,notingthat"[_a]lthough_ԀDefendant d recitesseveralfactorshebelievessupporthisapplicationfor  section212(c)relief,hefallsshortofconvincingthisCourtthat l thosefavorablefactorsoutweightheadverseones,especially h Defendant'sviolentcriminalhistory."     ` Asapreliminarymatter,wenotethatLunasfirst p  deportationorderandreentryshouldnotfactorintotheprejudice !l" analysis,giventheagencysrecognitionofthe seriouserrors "$ madeinhisfirstdeportationproceedings.The_IJ_ԀinLunassecond t$& deportationhearingwassotroubledbytheerrorsthathedidnot  &p!( considerthefirstdeportationhearingandreentryasgroundsfor '#* deportation.Giventhisdetermination,itisunlikelythatthe_IJ_  wouldhaveconsideredthatreentryinanadjudicationofLuna's \ 212(c)application. X    ` Puttingasidethatfactor,however,wenonethelessagree   withthedistrictcourtsconclusion.Lunahasaseriouscriminal `  history,includingnumerousoffensesandaviolentcrimeagainsta  \  child.Althoughheassertsthathehashadtheopportunityto   rehabilitatehimself,hefailstospecifyanyevidenceof d  rehabilitationorgoodcharacter.Lunalacksahistoryofsteady `  employmentandpointstonoevidenceofpositivecontributionsto   society.Furthermore,althoughLuna'sparentsandsiblingsarein h thiscountry,Lunafailstodescribehisrelationshipwiththemand d theextentofthehardshipthattheywillfaceifheisdeported.  WehavecarefullyconsideredthefavorableequitiesthatLunadoes l assert,particularlyhislengthyresidencyheresinceinfancy. h However,onthebalance,weconcludethatthereisnoreasonable  likelihoodthattheagencywouldhavegrantedawaiverinhiscase. p  Whilenoneoftheaforementionedfactors,takenalone,would !l" necessarilydoomLuna'sapplication,weconcludethathislengthy "$ criminalhistory,theviolentnatureofhiscriminalactivity,and t$& therelativelackofpositiveequitieseliminateanyreasonable  &p!( likelihoodthathewouldhavereceivedagrantofrelief. '#*    ` BecauseLunahasfailedtodemonstrateprejudiceunder x)$, 1326(d),thedistrictcourtproperlydeniedhismotiontodismiss $+t&. theindictmentforillegalreentry.Thedecisionofthedistrict  courtis affirmed. \    ` Soordered.