Sunday, February 12, 2017

9th Circuit: Illegal aliens have no right to an attorney

Before he was an illegal alien, Rufino Peralta-Sanchez of Mexico was a lawful permanent resident. He had a wife, three American children, and a pathway to citizenship.

He also had a criminal record.

From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
"Between 1990 and 2000, he maintained a relationship with a woman with whom he has three U.S. citizen children. Peralta’s criminal history, including a history of immigration offenses, is extensive. In 1982, Peralta was arrested in Bakersfield, California, under the name Gabriel Sanchez for arson, although these charges were eventually dismissed. He was arrested in 1983 under the same name, again for arson. In 1990, he was arrested in Fresno under the name Rufino Peralta-Sanchez for giving a false identification to a peace officer. Between 1990 and 1996, Peralta collected a string of driving under the influence (DUI) convictions: five misdemeanor convictions and a 1996 felony DUI conviction for which he was sentenced to 16 months in prison. As a result of the 1996 felony DUI conviction, the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service issued Peralta a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence. Peralta was ordered removed on June 7, 1999."
So Peralta had his chance to show he could be a good citizen and he blew it. Six times, if we count only the DUI convictions.

But he kept coming back. Illegally. Rather than bring his wife and children to Mexico where he could take care of them, Peralta chose to keep them in the USA where they would either fend for themselves or the U.S. government could do his job and take care of them.

When he returned, Peralta upgraded his felonious activity. From the court:
In January 2000, he was again convicted of felony DUI, as well as possession of cocaine, for which he was sentenced to 28 months in prison. Following this conviction, Peralta was convicted of misdemeanor illegal reentry. After serving his sentence, Peralta’s 1999 removal order was reinstated in December 2001, and he was again removed from the United States. Undeterred, Peralta entered the United States again and was convicted of felony reentry in October 2002, for which he received 30 months in prison. After serving this sentence, his 1999 order of removal was again reinstated in July 2004, and he was again removed from the United States. After another illegal reentry, the 1999 deportation order was again reinstated on May 23, 2012, and Peralta was again removed. Three days later, Peralta was again apprehended by Border Patrol agents one mile north of the border, hiding in the brush with two others.
What distinguished this last case of illegal entry was he demanded a lawyer. Somehow despite seven DUIs and a cocaine conviction plus all the illegal re-entry convictions, Peralta thought a lawyer who was a combination of Perry Mason and Johnny Cochran magically would convince a jury or magistrate that Peralta remain in a country for which he has done nothing but drive drunk and get high -- in between stretches in prison.

The Obama administration objected to the idea that an illegal alien is entitled to a lawyer paid by taxpayers.

The Wall Street Journal explained:
Under a 1996 federal law, Customs and Border Protection officers can use a process called “expedited removal” to swiftly deport immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of the border without valid entry documents and who have been in the U.S. fewer than 14 days.
A panel of three judges in the 9th Circuit agreed with the government when Peralta appealed his case and sought a court-apointed attorney:
The expedited removal process is intended to allow the government to exclude quickly those aliens found at or near the border who are clearly inadmissible—those who have no legal entry documents and who have established only a limited presence here. The introduction of lawyers in the expedited removal process is likely to turn the proceeding into something more akin to a trial—and a trial not before an IJ, but before an immigration officer unqualified to weigh the competing demands of opposing counsel in what will become an adversary proceeding. This will prolong the decision making process, exponentially increasing the cost to the government as the government must detain the alien, pay for the government’s own representation, pay for the creation of a longer record, and pay for the increased time the immigration officer must spend adjudicating such cases, distracting the officer from any other duties. Such a process, as Judge Friendly recognized in a slightly different context, is “not formulated for a situation in which many thousands of hearings must be provided each month.”
Their ruling was:
In sum, we conclude that Peralta’s 2012 expedited removal was not fundamentally unfair. Peralta had no Fifth Amendment due process right to counsel in the expedited removal proceeding under § 1225, and he cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting from the failure to notify him of the right to withdraw his application for admission. As a result, his 2012 expedited removal could be used as a predicate for his § 1326 conviction. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Peralta’s motion to dismiss the indictment and his subsequent judgment and sentence, as well as the revocation of his supervised release.
Peralta had his shot at citizenship.

He blew it.

Perhaps it is time to bill Mexico for the cost of locking him up.

@@@

"Trump the Establishment," my look at the general election, is available in paperback at Create Space, or if you prefer or (via Instapundit) Amazon as a paperback.

Kindle will be available March 1.

This is the sequel to "Trump the Press," which covered the nomination. It is available on Kindle, or in paperback on Create Space.

Autographed copies are available by writing me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Please follow me on Twitter.

9 comments:

  1. Who in the Obama administration is responsible for this outrage? Denying this guy a lawyer? And he kept his job? (Shoulda got a promotion.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...but a woman has a Fundamental Right to an Abortion!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is the repeat intruder only a Trumpian scale fence will keep out. "Donald's Wall is better than the alternative, which is shoot on sight.

    BTW, not all IJs are real judges. I learned the other day many of them are merely lawyers who've been hired by the government to hear immigration cases. In Donald's words, they are truly "so-called" judges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are administrative "judges" that are hired to be experts in regulatory or administrative law. Social Security Adm has lots of them in the appellate process for benefit claims, etc. When that process is exhausted (usually a few years) it then goes to federal district court. This decision by the appellate court is saying the illegals caught near the border are not due any regulatory or administrative process which is stipulated in the law specifically. They never bother to enter the process by filing for entry/residency so they don't get any administrative/regulatory relief because they don't file the paperwork/fees etc to start the process. They are criminals however who are involuntary stopped upon illegal entry which does not magically grant them immigration administrative rights.
      Elliott

      Delete
  4. Third incursion should bring a sentence of castration.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 3 strikes your out. Firing squad. Stops recidivism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, and a felony if repeated, ALL illegal aliens are criminals.

    ReplyDelete