The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Cristhian Perdomo-Hernandez for illegal reentry into the United States. This decision, made on November 6, 2026, affects individuals facing similar charges and reinforces existing legal interpretations regarding illegal reentry laws.

Perdomo-Hernandez was also involved in a related case concerning the revocation of his supervised release. The court's ruling is significant as it addresses constitutional arguments surrounding illegal reentry, which have implications for many immigrants facing similar legal challenges.

Background

Cristhian Perdomo-Hernandez was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. This law makes it a crime for individuals who have been previously deported to re-enter the country without permission. In addition to this conviction, Perdomo-Hernandez faced a revocation of his supervised release from a previous case.

The case reached the Fifth Circuit after Perdomo-Hernandez appealed his conviction and sentence. He argued that the enhancement applied to his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) was unconstitutional. However, he did not challenge the revocation of his supervised release. The appeal was consolidated with another case involving the same defendant, making it a significant matter for the court.

The Ruling

The Fifth Circuit ruled against Perdomo-Hernandez, affirming both his conviction for illegal reentry and the revocation of his supervised release. In the opinion, the court noted that Perdomo-Hernandez's argument regarding the unconstitutionality of the sentence enhancement was foreclosed by existing legal precedent. Specifically, the court referenced the Supreme Court case Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which allows judges to consider prior convictions when determining sentence enhancements.

The court stated, "the parties are correct that Perdomo-Hernandez’s argument is foreclosed," citing both Almendarez-Torres and other relevant cases. The court also granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, which means they agreed to uphold the lower court's decision without further argument.

The judges involved in the ruling were Circuit Judges Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt. Their decision emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal precedents in immigration cases.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for other individuals facing illegal reentry charges in the Fifth Circuit. By affirming the conviction, the court reinforces the legal framework that governs such cases, particularly the interpretation of prior convictions in sentencing enhancements. This decision may discourage similar appeals based on constitutional challenges to the enhancement provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Moreover, the ruling highlights the ongoing legal debate around immigration laws and the treatment of individuals who have previously been deported. As the court noted, the precedent set by Almendarez-Torres continues to play a critical role in shaping the outcomes of these cases.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Perdomo-Hernandez plans to appeal this decision further. However, given the nature of the case, it is possible that he may seek further legal avenues, especially if there are changes in the interpretation of immigration laws or relevant Supreme Court rulings in the future.