Jose Requena Vasquez appeals his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry following removal, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He asserts that the underlying removal order was defective because his waiver of counsel during the removal proceeding was unknowing and involuntary, he was denied the right to appointed counsel, his waiver of appeal was unknowing and involuntary, and the immigration judge failed to rule on his request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure.

Requena Vasquez fails to show a reasonable likelihood that, but for the alleged defects in the removal proceeding, he would not have been removed. See United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 735 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Villanueva-Diaz, 634 F.3d 844, 852 (5th Cir. 2011) (stating that speculation that an alien would not have been removed is not sufficient). Because he does not establish the required element of prejudice, Reque-na Vasquez’s challenge to the indictment fails. See United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225, 229 (5th Cir. 2002); § 1326(d).

The judgment is AFFIRMED.