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

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2169
MARVIN GIOVANY ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A94-432-201)
Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: May 10, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -