Does the court of appeals' holding conflict with Mendoza-Lopez?

QUESTION PRESENTED In United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this Court held that noncitizens have a due process right to collaterally attack their removal orders where their “waivers of their rights to appeal were not considered or intelligent” because, at their removal hearing, the immigration judge failed to properly advise them regarding a form of relief from removal. Congress codified this holding by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), which recognizes a noncitizen’s right to bring such collateral attacks, and also limits such attacks to cases in which the noncitizen exhausted “available” administrative remedies (§ 1326(d)(1)), the deportation process improperly deprived the noncitizen of the opportunity for judicial review (§ 1326(d)(2)), and the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair (§ 1326(d)(3)). In the instant case, the court of appeals held in a published opinion that § 1326(d)(1) and (2) bar collateral attacks on removal orders despite the immigration judge’s errors, unless those errors pertain directly to the appeal process. Does the court of appeals’ holding conflict with Mendoza-Lopez? RULE 14.1(b) STATEMENT (i) All