NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 14-2812

_____________

HUGO GERMAN CAMPOVERDE RIVERA,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

______________

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM REINSTATEMENT 

OF A PRIOR ORDER OF REMOVAL

(Agency No. A073-242-167)

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 23, 2015

______________

Before: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 12, 2015)

______________

OPINION*

______________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 

does not constitute binding precedent.
2

Hugo German Campoverde Rivera (“Rivera”) seeks review of the order reinstating 

his deportation order, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) is impermissibly retroactive as 

applied to him and that he was denied his right to counsel provided by 5 U.S.C. § 555 and 

8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b). Since neither of these arguments has merit, we will affirm the order.

Rivera was granted voluntary departure on May 24, 1994. He did not voluntarily 

depart in the time provided, but did eventually leave on September 30, 1996. He 

reentered the country illegally in August 1997, married an American citizen on April 16, 

2003, and applied for an adjustment of status on April 5, 2011. On April 22, 2014, his 

order of deportation was reinstated, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Dinnall v. Gonzales, 421 

F.3d 247, 251 n.6 (3d Cir. 2005). We review the legal questions presented de novo. Id.

at 251. 

In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”). IIRIRA amended several parts of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, including provisions related to reinstatement of orders of deportation for 

those who illegally reenter the United States. In relevant part, the revised statute 

provides:

If the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States 

illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under 

an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its 

original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is 

not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the 

alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.
3

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).1

By its terms, this statute applies to Rivera since he reentered the country illegally 

after its effective date. Avila-Macias v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 108, 114 (3d Cir. 2003) 

(“Applying IIRIRA to [Avila-Macias]—an alien who was deported prior to its effective 

date, but who reentered afterwards—does not have an impermissible retroactive effect 

because the consequences of an illegal reentry at the time that he reentered are the 

consequences he faces now.”). While Rivera argues that the Department of Labor 

certification he submitted on June 10, 1996 “grandfathers” him under the prior version of 

the reinstatement statute, thus apparently exempting him from the provision of the current 

statute, he offers no support for, or explanation of, this position.

As to Rivera’s argument regarding the denial of his right to counsel, we have 

previously recognized that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a), “the alien is not allowed a 

hearing before an IJ, nor does the alien have a right to counsel” in a reinstatement 

proceeding. Dinnall, 421 F.3d at 253. Further, we have upheld the constitutionality of 

the summary procedures established in § 241.8(a) and found no due process violation. 

Ponta-Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 158, 162-63 (3d Cir. 2009). 

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order reinstating the deportation 

order. 

 

1 This change went into effect on April 1, 1997.