Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01197/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chertoff
Respondent
Salvador Estrada-Dominguez
Petitioner
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 

No. 06-1197

___________

Salvador Estrada-Dominguez, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Appeal from an Order

* of the Board of 

Alberto Gonzales, United States * Immigration Appeals.

Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Secretary, Department of Homeland *

Security, *

*

Respondents. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2007

Filed: February 23, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

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).

Appellate Case: 06-1197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281385
-2-

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. NativiGomez 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-Pera, 339 F.3d 320 (5th Cir.

2003). Moreover, an alien may not collaterally attack an otherwise valid state court

conviction in immigration proceedings. See, e.g., Guillen-Garcia v. INS, 999 F.2d

199 (7th Cir. 1993).

The petition for review is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1197 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281385