S. Estrada-Dominguez v. Alberto Gonzales

217 F. App'x 591
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 23, 2007
Docket06-1197
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 F. App'x 591 (S. Estrada-Dominguez v. Alberto Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
S. Estrada-Dominguez v. Alberto Gonzales, 217 F. App'x 591 (8th Cir. 2007).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Salvador Estrada-Dominguez, entered the United States without inspection in 1989. He was subsequently placed in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a for being present in the United States -without inspection in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Petitioner conceded removability and applied for relief through cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).

The Immigration Judge found that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his conviction in an Iowa state court of a crime of moral turpitude.

The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4).

Petitioner contends that because his state conviction was obtained in violation of his right to due process of law, namely, the denial of his right to effective assistance of counsel and the failure to provide him an interpreter, it cannot serve as the basis for the denial of his claim for cancellation of removal.

The denial of the discretionary relief of cancellation of removal does not implicate a liberty interest and thus does not give rise to a due process claim. Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2003); Escudero-Corona v. INS, 244 F.3d 608 (8th Cir.2001). See also United States v. Calderon-Pena, 339 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, an alien may not collaterally attack an otherwise valid state court conviction in immigration proceedings. *592 See, e.g., Guillen-Garcia v. INS, 999 F.2d 199 (7th Cir.1993).

The petition for review is denied.

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

Related

United States v. Rubalcava Gonzales
179 F. Supp. 3d 917 (E.D. Missouri, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 F. App'x 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-estrada-dominguez-v-alberto-gonzales-ca8-2007.