In 2011, Alberto Aglesia was given conditional permanent residence for a two year time period. This conditional residence status was set to expire on January 12, 2013. Two weeks before expiration, Alberto made a call to USCIS to check up on the date of his interview for permanent residency. USCIS told Alberto he should receive correspondence through the mail regarding the interview, but Alberto received nothing. Alberto then called the office to set up an appointment extending his conditional residency. The appointment extended the time of his conditional residence to December 31 of that same year. The only form of proof of the extended status is Alberto’s passport, which contains the extended date stamped onto it. His identification card continues to read January 12, 2013 as the expired date.
The current date is April 12 of the same year. One day while driving home, police pulled Alberto over by for expired vehicle tags. Police soon learned that Alberto’s conditional residence had terminated on January 12, which would render his status expired for three months. Alberto attempted to tell the police that he was given a valid extension to December 31, but he is unable to prove this because he left his passport at home. Police take Alberto into custody and soon after, he is notified that deportation proceedings will commence due to his remaining in this country illegally with an expired permanent residence. Alberto hires a lawyer to represent him before the merits hearing. The judge presiding over the hearing denied Alberto the opportunity to produce forth witnesses or prevent evidence. The judge ultimately ruled to deport Alberto after noting that Alberto’s permanent residence card reflected an expired date. The judge claimed that no additional proof on the matter because the expired date was conclusive evidence.
Argument
The Board of Appeals should review Albert’s allegation of due process violations de novo (Hulcochea-Gomez v. I.N.S. 699). It is well-settled that aliens are entitled to constitutional due process when a life, liberty, or property interest is at stake (Kidane 119). In the deportation context, the case U.S. v. Floulis set forth the due process requirements for a deportation order: 1) reasonable notice of the charges, 2) the privilege of counsel, 3) the opportunity to repent evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and 4) a decision based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence (U.S. v. Floulis 1354).
The judge in this case did not comply with the minimal due process as required by the Floulis case in Alberto’s removal proceedings. In denying Alberto the opportunity to cross examine the government’s witnesses or proffer his own evidence before rendering a final decision. The right of the alien to “present evidence on the alien’s on behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government” is basic to the notions of due process and fundamental fairness in an immigration hearing (Cinaplan v. Holder 1074). Since Alberto was denied to present
Conclusion
Because the judge failed to affort Alberto the opportunity to cross examine witnesses or proffer evidence as required by minimum due process standards, the judge’s ruling should be vacated and a new hearing should be scheduled that provides Alberto with the opportunity to be heard and the ability to present evidence. Works Cited
Cinaplan v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067. United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir. 2009). Web.
U.S. v. Floulis, 457 F.Supp. 1350. United States District Court (W.D. Pa. 1978). Web. 20
Feb. 2016.
Hulcochea-Gomez v. I.N.S., 237 F.3d 696. United States Court of Appeals (6th Cir.
2001). Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Kidane, Won. “Revisiting the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Applicable In
Adversarial Administrative Deportation Proceedings: Lessons from the
(2007): 93-164. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
