Illegal Reentry Defense Lawyer

An illegal reentry prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 looks simple from the outside and rarely is. The government charges that a person who is not a citizen was previously denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, and afterwards entered, attempted to enter, or was found in the United States without the required consent. Stated that way it sounds like a records case. In practice the records are the case, and the records are frequently incomplete, internally inconsistent, or built on an earlier proceeding that will not withstand examination. In the Eastern District of Virginia these matters typically surface after a traffic stop, a local arrest, a workplace encounter, or a routine check that produces a fingerprint match, and the client often learns of the federal charge while already in custody on something else.

What makes the defense worth taking seriously is that the charge depends entirely on a prior administrative proceeding that the client may never have understood, may not have attended, and may not have been able to appeal. That earlier proceeding is not beyond challenge. The statute itself provides a route to attack the removal order the prosecution rests on, and where that attack succeeds the count cannot stand. The work is documentary, it takes time, and it starts with obtaining the complete immigration file rather than the summary the government has produced. To arrange a consultation about a federal illegal reentry charge, call (888) 437-7747.

On this page

What the Government Must Prove

The elements are discrete and each has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The government must prove that the defendant is not a citizen or national of the United States; that the defendant was previously denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed; that the defendant thereafter entered, attempted to enter, or was found in the United States; and that the defendant had not obtained the consent required by the statute before doing so.

Alienage is the element people assume is settled and it is not always settled. Citizenship can be acquired at birth abroad through a parent, and it can be derived automatically through a parent naturalising while the person was a child. The governing rules are technical and they depend on the law in force at the relevant time rather than on the law as it reads now. A person who has been removed once, and who has been treated as a noncitizen by every agency that has handled the file, can still turn out to have been a citizen throughout. That possibility is checked by tracing parentage and immigration history through documents, not by asking the client what they believe.

The removal element requires proof that a removal actually occurred and that it was carried out. A removal order that was entered but never executed is not the same thing as a removal. The physical departure has to be documented, and the documents that establish it are the ones worth examining first.

The final element concerns consent. Where a person applied for and received permission to reapply for admission, or was lawfully admitted afterwards, the element fails. This is uncommon but it is checked rather than assumed.

How These Cases Reach Federal Court Here

Most illegal reentry prosecutions in this district begin with contact that had nothing to do with immigration. A traffic stop, a domestic call, a workplace incident, or a booking at a local jail generates a fingerprint submission, which produces a match against an existing immigration record, which produces a detainer and eventually a referral. By the time federal counsel is involved, the client has usually been interviewed at least once, sometimes several times, and often without any lawyer present.

Those interviews matter. Statements made about place of birth, about how and when the person came back, and about prior removals are the ordinary means by which the government proves elements it would otherwise have to establish from documents alone. Whether the statements were taken in custody, whether warnings were given, whether an interpreter was used and whether that interpreter was competent, and whether the form the client signed was in a language the client reads are all questions with documentary answers, and they are where suppression motions in these cases come from.

A parallel point concerns immigration detention. A person may be held on an immigration detainer, on a criminal charge, or on both, and the postures are governed by different rules. Understanding which authority is holding the client, and why, changes what can be asked for and when.

Attacking the Prior Removal Order

The statute permits a defendant to challenge the validity of the removal order that the charge depends on. The requirements are set out in the statute itself and the defendant must satisfy them: that available administrative remedies were exhausted, that the earlier proceeding improperly deprived the defendant of the opportunity to have the order examined by a court, and that entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. Each requirement carries its own body of law and each is litigated on its own facts.

What produces these motions in practice is the record of the removal hearing itself. Whether the person was advised of the right to counsel and given a real opportunity to obtain it. Whether an interpreter was provided and whether the interpretation was adequate. Whether the person was advised of relief for which they were apparently eligible, and whether a waiver of appeal was knowing and voluntary rather than collected on a form at the end of a group proceeding. Whether an expedited process was used where it should not have been. Where a hearing was conducted quickly, in a language the person did not read, and ended with a signature on a printed waiver, the motion is worth investigating carefully.

These motions require the underlying record, which means the complete immigration file and, where it exists, the recording or transcript of the hearing. Obtaining that material takes time and it does not arrive automatically with the government discovery. Requesting it early is the single most useful step in most of these cases.

The Immigration File and What It Does Not Show

The government usually proves its case with a certified packet: the order, the warrant of removal, a departure record, fingerprint comparisons, and a certificate of nonexistence of a record showing that no application for consent was found. Each of those has a weakness worth understanding.

Fingerprint comparisons are opinion evidence and the underlying analysis can be examined rather than accepted. A certificate of nonexistence of record depends on the completeness of a search and on the systems searched, and the scope of that search is a fair subject for cross-examination. A departure record proves what an officer recorded rather than what necessarily occurred. Where documents were generated over many years by different systems, inconsistencies in names, dates of birth, and identifiers are common, and those inconsistencies bear directly on whether the file describes this person at all.

Sentencing Exposure and How It Is Assessed

Section 1326 grades exposure by reference to what preceded the removal, so the statutory range depends on the defendant’s prior record rather than on the reentry itself. This page does not state any of those ranges. The figures have not been verified against the source this firm requires before a number appears in published material, and an inaccurate statutory maximum in this area would be a serious error rather than a small one. The current statutory text should be confirmed with counsel on the facts of the individual case.

The advisory Guidelines calculation can be described. It begins with the illegal reentry guideline and adjusts according to the nature and timing of prior convictions and prior removals, with the largest movements driven by whether a prior conviction falls into a defined category. Because those categories are defined by legal analysis rather than by the label on the earlier conviction, they are contestable: what the prior offense actually required as an element, how the earlier sentence was structured, and whether the conviction is properly counted at all are all open questions. Criminal history is scored separately and is a frequent source of error. Acceptance of responsibility applies where it applies.

Outside the calculation, the court considers the statutory sentencing factors, and the personal circumstances that brought the client back into the country are often the most significant material the defense can assemble: family in the United States, medical need, conditions in the country of removal, and length of prior residence. That material is gathered as records and declarations rather than asserted.

Immigration Consequences Run Alongside

A criminal case under this statute does not resolve the immigration situation, and the two tracks proceed under different rules with different decision makers. A resolution that looks favourable in the criminal case can close options on the immigration side, and the reverse is also true. Any plea discussion should account for both, and where a client has a pending or potential immigration claim, that claim needs to be understood before the criminal case is resolved rather than afterwards.

Frequently Asked Questions

I was deported years ago and just got picked up. Why is this a federal crime?

Because the statute reaches being found in the United States after a removal, not only the act of crossing. That is why a person can be charged long after returning and after living without incident. It also means the government has to prove the earlier removal and the absence of consent, which are documentary questions rather than matters of what happened on the day of the arrest.

Can the old removal order be challenged in the criminal case?

Yes, in a defined way. The statute allows a defendant to attack the validity of the removal order the charge depends on, provided the statutory requirements are met. It is not a rehearing of the immigration case and it is not available simply because the outcome was harsh. It turns on what happened procedurally in the earlier proceeding, which is why the record of that proceeding is obtained first.

What if I am actually a citizen?

Then an element fails and the count cannot stand. This is checked rather than assumed, because citizenship acquired at birth abroad or derived through a parent is not always known to the person who holds it, and agencies do sometimes proceed on a mistaken assumption. Establishing it requires tracing parentage, residence, and naturalisation records under the law in force at the relevant time.

Should I explain to the agents why I came back?

Not without counsel present. Explanations offered in an interview commonly supply the government with proof of elements it would otherwise have to establish from documents, particularly alienage and the manner of return. Declining to answer is not evidence of anything. Whether to speak at all is a decision made after the file has been examined, not at the outset.

Does having family here help?

It is not a defense to the elements, but it is relevant at sentencing and it can be relevant to the immigration track. What carries weight is documentation rather than assertion: records of the relationship, evidence of dependence, medical records where health is involved, and school records for children. That material is gathered while the case is pending, not on the day of the hearing.

Will pleading guilty affect my immigration case?

It can, and the effect is sometimes larger than the criminal sentence. Because the two tracks are governed by different rules, a resolution has to be assessed for both. Where a client has a pending claim or a potential one, counsel needs to understand it before a plea is entered rather than after.

How long does one of these cases take?

This page offers no figure, because the schedule depends on how quickly the immigration file is produced and on whether a challenge to the prior order is filed. Those challenges take time to prepare because they depend on records held by another agency. Once the court enters a scheduling order your lawyer can describe the actual dates.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Illegal reentry cases turn on records held by another agency, and the first useful step is almost always obtaining the complete immigration file rather than working from the government summary.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm has been practicing since 1997. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys handle criminal defense matters across those jurisdictions, which matters in federal practice because a single investigation frequently reaches conduct, witnesses, and records in more than one state. Mr. Sris brings a background in accounting and information systems from George Mason University, applied to complex financial and technology-related cases.

The firm serves Northern Virginia from 1655 Fort Myer Dr, Suite 700, Room 719, Arlington, VA 22209 and central Virginia from 7400 Beaufont Springs Drive, Suite 300, Room 395, Richmond, VA 23225. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

This page provides general information about federal illegal reentry charges under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.

An illegal reentry case is one part of a wider federal practice, and our page on federal criminal attorney covers how federal matters are handled.