Martin Macias-Cruz (Macias) appeals from his illegal reentry conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). A prior panel of this court considered Macias’s appeal and issued an opinion affirming the judgment of the district court. United States v. Macias-Cruz, 82 Fed.Appx. 380, 381 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished). That opinion was vacated on January 7, 2004, when the prior panel granted rehearing. United States v. Macias-Cruz, 84 Fed.Appx. 462 (5th Cir. 2004) (unpublished), vacating 82 Fed-Appx. 380.

Macias-Cruz challenges his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing that the underlying 1998 deportation order was fundamentally unfair and deprived him of administrative and judicial review. He argues that he was actually prejudiced by the 1998 deportation proceeding because the immigration judge ordered him deported based on the mistaken belief that his 1994 assault conviction was an “aggravated felony.”

Because Macias-Cruz did not raise this issue in the district court, our review is for *203 plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). In order to collaterally challenge a prior deportation order in a criminal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, the alien must “establish that (1) the prior hearing was fundamentally unfair; (2) the hearing effectively eliminated the right of the alien to challenge the hearing by means of judicial review of the order; and (3) the procedural deficiencies caused the alien actual prejudice.” See United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 813 F.3d 225, 229 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1135, 123 S.Ct. 922, 154 L.Ed.2d 827 (2003); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (setting forth requirements for challenge to validity of a deportation order in a criminal proceeding, including, inter alia, the requirement that the “alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order”).

Macias-Cruz has not made the requisite showing for challenging the validity of his prior deportation order. See Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d at 229; 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). Thus, he has not demonstrated plain error with respect to his challenge to his criminal conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 on the ground that his 1998 deportation order violated due process. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.