Alvarez v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Alvarez v. Gonzales

179 F. App'x 892

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 2006

Docket05-2169

StatusUnpublished

This text of 179 F. App'x 892 (Alvarez v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvarez v. Gonzales, 179 F. App'x 892 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Giovany Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a final administrative removal order. Alvarez contends he was denied his right to due process because he did not have a hearing before an immigration judge in which he could challenge his removability. We deny the petition for review.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) (2000), an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence who is convicted of an aggravated felony may be placed in expedited administrative removal proceedings. Under such expedited proceedings, aliens must be allowed (1) reasonable notice of the charges; (2) the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the government) by counsel; (3) a reasonable opportunity to inspect the evidence and rebut the charges; (4) a determination for the record that the individual upon whom the notice is served is, in fact, the alien named in such notice; and (5) a record maintained for judicial review. Alvarez does not claim he was denied any of the protections under § 1228(b). We find these procedures comport with due process. See United States v. Rangel de Aguilar, 308 F.3d 1134, 1138 (10th Cir.2002); United States v. Garcia-Martinez, 228 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d 651, 656-57 (5th Cir.1999).

The record does not support Alvarez’s claim that he was in fact granted a hearing before an immigration judge. Insofar as Alvarez declared his preference to have a hearing before an immigration judge, the Government was not precluded from instituting Expedited Administrative Removal Proceedings.

We further find Alvarez failed to show he was prejudiced due to the alleged denial of due process. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir.2002)

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Giovany Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a final administrative removal order. Alvarez contends he was denied his right to due process because he did not have a hearing before an immigration judge in which he could challenge his removability. We deny the petition for review.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) (2000), an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence who is convicted of an aggravated felony may be placed in expedited administrative removal proceedings. Under such expedited proceedings, aliens must be allowed (1) reasonable notice of the charges; (2) the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the government) by counsel; (3) a reasonable opportunity to inspect the evidence and rebut the charges; (4) a determination for the record that the individual upon whom the notice is served is, in fact, the alien named in such notice; and (5) a record maintained for judicial review. Alvarez does not claim he was denied any of the protections under § 1228(b). We find these procedures comport with due process. See United States v. Rangel de Aguilar, 308 F.3d 1134, 1138 (10th Cir.2002); United States v. Garcia-Martinez, 228 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d 651, 656-57 (5th Cir.1999).

The record does not support Alvarez’s claim that he was in fact granted a hearing before an immigration judge. Insofar as Alvarez declared his preference to have a hearing before an immigration judge, the Government was not precluded from instituting Expedited Administrative Removal Proceedings.

We further find Alvarez failed to show he was prejudiced due to the alleged denial of due process. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir.2002)

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 F. App'x 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-gonzales-ca4-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack