Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Luis Gallardo-Monares was convicted after a bench trial of misdemeanor attempted illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). The district court issued an order affirming that conviction, and Gallardo-Monares appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The appeal was submitted without oral argument on October 27, 2026, and a three-judge panel decided it in an unpublished memorandum on November 3, 2026.
The trial evidence, as summarized by the panel, showed that a border patrol agent responding to an alert found Gallardo-Monares hiding in brush in a remote area about two and a half miles north of the border and roughly 16 miles from the nearest port of entry. He was wearing booties often used by people entering the country illegally to conceal their footprints. Neither he nor his two companions had any recreational gear. When questioned, he said he was a citizen of Mexico and had no immigration documents showing lawful presence in the United States. A records custodian also testified that federal immigration databases held no record of his name or date of birth.
On appeal, Gallardo-Monares raised two sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments. First, he argued that his own statement was the only proof of alienage, which he said violated the corpus delicti doctrine. Second, he argued that the evidence did not show that he actually entered the United States. The memorandum describes no other claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It reviewed the sufficiency claim de novo, asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard framed both of Gallardo-Monares's arguments.
On the corpus delicti argument, the panel held that the claim failed because there was some independent evidence supporting his confession, including the circumstances in which he was discovered. The panel therefore did not treat his own admission of Mexican citizenship as the only evidence of alienage. It cited United States v. Gonzalez-Godinez for the proposition that some independent corroboration is enough. The reasoning is brief and does not separately weigh each fact as corroboration, although the panel had earlier recounted the remote location, the concealment booties, the absence of recreational gear, and the lack of any database record.
On the remaining elements, the panel concluded that a rational trier of fact could infer that Gallardo-Monares had entered the country at a time and place other than a designated port of entry, with the specific intent to do so, and had taken a substantial step toward committing the crime. It relied on United States v. Rizo-Rizo for the elements of attempted illegal entry. It relied on United States v. Quintana-Torres for the principle that a reasonable factfinder may infer an intention to be in the country when a noncitizen is discovered at any location other than the border. The disposition was a plain affirmance. The court ordered no further relief and announced no new rule.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed a misdemeanor attempted illegal entry conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) after reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence de novo.
- The corpus delicti challenge failed because some independent evidence, including the circumstances of Gallardo-Monares's discovery, supported his statement that he was a Mexican citizen.
- The panel held that the trial evidence allowed a rational factfinder to infer entry at a place other than a port of entry, specific intent, and a substantial step toward the crime.
- The panel relied on Quintana-Torres for the point that discovery away from the border supports an inference that the person intended to be in the country.
- The memorandum is unpublished and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, and it simply affirms without ordering further relief.
Why It Matters
This is a routine, non-precedential application of settled Ninth Circuit law. It matters mainly as an illustration of how the court evaluates circumstantial proof in border-area prosecutions. It shows that corroboration of a defendant's admission need not be extensive: the panel required only some independent evidence and found it in the setting in which the defendant was found.
Because it is an unpublished memorandum, it is not binding authority and carries no precedential weight under Rule 36-3. Its facts, including the distance from the border and the footwear, were case-specific, and the panel did not decide how the analysis would apply on different facts. Nor did it address the corpus delicti rule beyond this record. Litigants should treat the published decisions it cites, not this memorandum, as the controlling sources.