Mondragon v. Holder, 706 F.3d 535, (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013) (respondent cannot challenge in removal proceedings the constitutional validity of a conviction on which those proceedings are based: Indeed, the same reasoning has also led courts to apply Custis to the immigration context. See, e.g., Drakes v. INS, 330 F.3d 600, 604 (3d Cir. 2003) (There is no meaningful difference between a collateral attack on an expired state conviction underlying removal proceedings and a collateral attack on an expired state criminal conviction underlying an enhanced sentence); Taylor v. United States, 396 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir.2005) (same).).