## Facts

- Cipriano Morales-Palacios, a Mexican citizen, obtained Special Agricultural Worker status in 1988 and lawful permanent resident status in 1990 under an INS file tied to his true identity.
- From 1994 to 1998, he was arrested and convicted three times in California for transporting or selling controlled substances, using multiple false names.
- Based on his aliases, immigration authorities created a separate immigration file and deported him to Mexico each time as an aggravated felon.
- During those deportations, he received oral and written notice that he could not reenter the United States without express governmental consent.
- He later reentered the United States and attempted to regularize his status under his true name; database checks linked to his original file reflected lawful permanent resident status because the system did not connect it to the separate file under which he had been deported.
- After traveling to Mexico, he attempted to return by air; at inspection, officials discovered his prior aggravated-felon deportations and arrested him.
- He was prosecuted for attempted illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

## Issues

1. Whether attempted illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is a specific-intent offense requiring proof that the defendant specifically intended to enter unlawfully (i.e., knew reentry was unauthorized).
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a specific-intent jury instruction and excluding evidence/argument of the defendant’s subjective good-faith belief that he could lawfully enter.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- Attempted illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is not a specific-intent crime; specific intent to violate the statute is not an element.
- The district court properly refused the defendant’s requested specific-intent instruction.
- The district court properly excluded evidence and argument offered solely to show “innocent intent” or a subjective belief in lawful entry.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1326 is a regulatory immigration offense; absent clear statutory text, courts will not add a heightened mens rea requirement of specific intent to violate the law.
- For attempted illegal reentry under § 1326, the government must prove intent to engage in the proscribed conduct (attempting to reenter without required permission) and a substantial step toward entry, not a subjective purpose to break the law.
- The use of the term “attempt” in § 1326 does not necessarily import common-law attempt’s specific-intent requirement when Congress employs attempt liability within a regulatory scheme.
- Evidence directed only at negating a non-element (specific intent to violate § 1326) is irrelevant and may be excluded.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that attempted illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 requires no proof that the defendant specifically intended to violate immigration law; it is enough that the defendant intended to attempt reentry without authorization and took a substantial step toward doing so, making a specific-intent instruction and “innocent intent” evidence improper.


United States v. Morales-Palacios, 369 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2004)