Opinion ID: 709944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circumstances Surrounding Arrest and Conviction

Text: 7 At his deportation hearing, the IJ refused to consider evidence and testimony on whether Duenas-Lopez's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, so as to render his drug conviction invalid. Duenas-Lopez argues that this was error, under INS rules and under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 8 It is well-settled that once a conviction is final, it cannot be reexamined by the INS unless (1) it is void on its face; or (2) the IJ is considering discretionary relief. Ortega de Robles v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1995); Avila-Murrieta v. INS, 762 F.2d 733, 736 (9th Cir.1985) (recognizing void on face exception); Trench v. INS, 738 F.2d 181 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 961 (1986) (recognizing discretionary relief exception). We find Duenas-Lopez ineligible for Sec. 212(c) discretionary relief (see below) and he does not claim that his conviction is void on its face. Thus, he cannot ask the IJ to reexamine his conviction and any evidence or testimony offered for that purpose is irrelevant. Since the failure to reexamine such a conviction cannot be prejudicial, Avila-Murrieta, 762 F.2d at 736, Duenas-Lopez could suffer no Due Process violation.