Hon. Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION
Hon. Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal information based on the ground that the immigration statute he is charged with violating - 8 U.S.C. Section 1326 - violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment under the standard articulated in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). The Court finds that the rational basis test applies to Defendant's motion. See Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We review equal protection challenges to federal immigration laws under the rational basis standard and uphold them if they are ‘rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.'”) (quoting Masnauskas v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th. Cir. 2005). The Court further finds that Section 1326 satisfies the rational basis test because it is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of deterring illegal reentry into the United States. See United States v. Hernandez-Guerrerro, 147 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (“By threatening with criminal prosecution any alien found in the United States who has previously been ‘excluded, deported, or removed,' Congress sought in § 1326 to give teeth to civil immigration statutes and to ensure compliance with civil deportation orders.... In fact, it is plain that § 1326 is a necessary piece of the immigration-regulation framework; without the threat of criminal prosecution that it provides, Congress's immigration-regulation authority would be fatally undermined-all bark and no bite.”); cf. United States v. Ruiz-Chairez 493 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Because the illegal reentry statute is a proper exercise of Congress's immigration power, and because § 2L1.2 properly implements this congressional directive, we must conclude that the 16 level enhancement under § 2L1.2 serves a legitimate government interest and has a rational basis. The enhancement serves the legitimate government interest of deterring illegal reentry by those who have committed drug-related and violent crimes.”) (citations omitted). Defendant's motion to dismiss the information is therefore denied.
In United States v. Carillo-Lopez, 68 F.4th 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court declined to decide what standard of review applies to statutory challenges such as the one made by defendant Zuniga-Franco. However, even if the heightened Arlington Heights standard of review were to be used to analyze defendant Zuniga-Franco's motion, the analysis set forth in Carillo-Lopez compels the conclusion that defendant Zuniga-Franco has failed to carry his burden of proving that § 1326 is invalid under equal protection principles. Id. at 1142-54.
IT IS SO ORDERED.