Guerra-Quezada v. United States

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Appellants have not adequately briefed these claims: They are completely unsubstantiated by citations to the record, and the case citations in the briefing are systematically defective. Accordingly, Appellants have forfeited these arguments. ... Troubling to the court is the fact that the briefs filed in both cases by Appellants’ counsel contain significant inaccuracies. Both briefs quote Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 (1922), for the proposition that “[N]o deportable alien may be expelled until it has first been determined . . . that he is in fact an alien.” This court’s research has failed to locate this quote in Ng Fung Ho or in any other opinion. Additionally, in Guerra-Vasquez’s opening brief, a parenthetical cites the correct part of Ng Fung Ho but misquotes the majority. Both briefs also attribute the phrase, “[i]t is wrong to deport a United States citizen,” to Ng Fung Ho, but that phrase does not appear in the opinion. ... Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 requires all filed briefs to contain arguments supported by “citations to the authorities,” disallowing citation to nonexistent or fabricated cases. ... The court takes no action now for the foregoing deficiencies, but counsel must take this obligation seriously in the future.

Authorities cited in the passage: Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922) · Doe v. McAleenan, 926 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2019) · Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) · Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958) · Fed. R. App. P. 28 · Fed. R. App. P. 32 · Fed. R. App. P. 38 · Fed. R. App. P. 46 · Garces v. Hernandez, 2025 WL 2401001 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025)