*729MEMORANDUM***

The evidence that Campos-Saucedo would have introduced does not satisfy the criteria for a necessity defense. Before a defendant may present a necessity defense, his proffered evidence must establish that a reasonable jury could conclude: “(1) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) that he acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) that he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and (4) that there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law.” United States v. Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662, 693 (9th Cir. 1989).

Campos-Saucedo has not demonstrated that his children or his family faced any imminent harm. Nor has he established that there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law. Campos-Saucedo could have petitioned the Attorney General for readmission, see United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001), or his wife and children could have gone to Mexico to visit or live. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.