In prosecution on charge of defendant-alien being in U.S. illegally after having been removed in 2008, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment on said charge based on defendant’s claim that immigration officials never had jurisdiction to remove him in 2008 because his Notice to Appear lacked date for removal hearing. Ortiz-Santiago, 924 F.3d 956, found that failure to include hearing date in Notice to Appear was only claims-processing statutory error, as opposed to jurisdictional error, and thus Dist. Ct. could properly deny defendant’s motion to dismiss instant charge. Ct. further noted that: (1) defendant had stipulated to his 2008 removal and had waived his rights to hearing or to judicial review; (2) had defendant made timely challenge to his 2008 Notice to Appear, he would have been issued new Notice that contained hearing date; and (3) defendant did not contend that he had any substantive defense to his 2008 removal.
