22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ef,MEMORANDUM Antonio Lopez-Valle appeals his conviction of attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Lopez argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, which collaterally attacked the deportation order. “To succeed in such a challenge ... an alien must demonstrate that: ‘(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.’ ” United States v. Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (d)). Even assuming arguendo that Lopez could satisfy the first two requirements, he cannot meet the third. To show fundamental unfairness, Lopez must establish prejudice. United States v. Bustos-Ochoa, 704 F.3d 1053,1056-57 (9th Cir.2012). Because he has been convicted of an aggravated felony he cannot do so. Id. at 1056-57 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T521,

MEMORANDUM

Antonio Lopez-Valle appeals his conviction of attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Lopez argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, which collaterally attacked the deportation order. “To succeed in such a challenge ... an alien must demonstrate that: ‘(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.’ ” United States v. Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (d)).

Even assuming arguendo that Lopez could satisfy the first two requirements, he cannot meet the third. To show fundamental unfairness, Lopez must establish prejudice. United States v. Bustos-Ochoa, 704 F.3d 1053,1056-57 (9th Cir.2012). Because he has been convicted of an aggravated felony he cannot do so. Id. at 1056-57 .

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.