US v. Castro-Aleman: Castro-Aleman fled political violence in El Salvador in 1973, when he was eight years old, entering the United States unlawfully. Over the hears he accumulated several criminal convictions (most for DUI, plus an identity theft charge) and, in 2016, was taken into ICE custody and subject to removal proceedings. When Castro-Aleman expressed fear of returning to El Salvador, the immigration judge told him he could apply for asylum and continued the hearing. When the hearing resumed, Castro-Aleman explained he had not completed the asylum paperwork because he could not get his father’s death certificate. The judge asked if Castro-Aleman wanted more time, but Castro-Aleman said no and asked for voluntary departure instead. The judge rejected that request and ordered Castro-Aleman removed and mentioned the possibility of appeal.
Castro-Aleman returned to the United States and was found in 2023 and charged with illegal reentry. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his removal proceedings had been flawed and therefore his removal was invalid. The district court disagreed and Castro-Aleman entered a conditional guilty plea.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Castro-Aleman’s motion to dismiss, holding he could not show that his removal order was “fundamentally unfair.” First, the court concluded (based on prior precedent) that Castro-Aleman had no constitutional right to be properly advised of his eligibility for discretionary relief and, therefore, it didn’t matter if the immigration judge had failed to adequately develop the record with regard to his asylum claim. Second, the court concluded that even if the immigration judge failed to adequately inform Castro-Aleman of his right to appeal the removal order that Castro-Aleman could not show prejudice because, based on his record, he would not have prevailed.
No comments:
Post a Comment