Opinion ID: 3149319
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IJ’s Failure to Make a Finding of Voluntariness

Text: Cordova correctly contends that the IJ failed to expressly find that her waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). Section 1003.25(b) provides that an IJ “may enter [a removal] order without a hearing and in the absence of the parties based on a review of the charging document, the written stipulation, and supporting documents, if any.” However, “[i]f the alien is unrepresented, the Immigration Judge must determine that the alien’s waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” Id. Cordova, who was unrepresented, argues that this error rendered her removal proceedings fundamentally unfair and that she was deprived of an immigration hearing in violation of due process. This court has not addressed the precise question of whether an IJ’s failure to expressly make a determination of the voluntariness of the waiver in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 3 Indeed, the district court stated that although Cordova repeatedly contended that the IJ failed to make a voluntariness determination, she never claimed that her waiver was actually unknowing and involuntary. 8 Case: 14-50053 Document: 00513245181 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/23/2015 No. 14-50053 1003.25(b) constitutes a due process violation that renders the removal proceedings fundamentally unfair. 4 Nonetheless, this court’s precedent with respect to determining whether an alien has received due process during deportation proceedings provides guidance for the instant analysis. In Benitez-Villafuerte, an alien was convicted of an aggravated felony and deported following expedited removal proceedings conducted within the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). 186 F.3d at 654. Benitez subsequently reentered the United States without permission and was charged with illegal reentry after deportation under § 1326. Id. Like Cordova, Benitez challenged the validity of the deportation order that formed the basis of the illegal reentry prosecution. Id. at 656. The district court held that “Benitez’s waiver of rights executed before INS officers did not constitute an effective waiver of his basic rights to judicially contest his deportation because his waiver had not been made in open court before a neutral magistrate who could affirm that the waiver was knowing and voluntary.” Id. On appeal, this court explained that the due process clause prohibits the government “from ‘arbitrarily . . . causing an alien who has entered the country . . . illegally to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.’” Id. (quoting Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 101 (1903)). “[D]ue process requires only that an alien be provided notice of the charges against him, a hearing before an executive or administrative tribunal, 4 See Altamirano-Lopez v. Keisler, 250 F. App’x 658, 659 (5th Cir. 2007) (although petitioners raised a due process violation based on the IJ’s failure to determine whether their waivers were voluntary under § 1003.25(b), this court did not reach the argument because it dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction). 9 Case: 14-50053 Document: 00513245181 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/23/2015 No. 14-50053 and a fair opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 657. However, due process rights, including the right to a hearing, can be waived. Id. In Benitez-Villafuerte, the record demonstrated that an INS agent gave Benitez notice of the charges against him and that the agent explained to him that he had a right to a hearing to contest the charges. Id. at 658. Benitez waived that right. Id. Additionally, Benitez waived his right to a 14-day stay of execution of the deportation order. Id. This court stated that the record showed Benitez was provided with “ample constitutional protection.” Id. We noted that there was no record evidence that Benitez’s waiver was not knowing and voluntarily. Id. 5 Here, Cordova received notice of the charges and was informed that she had the right to be represented by an attorney. The agent gave Cordova the telephone numbers to legal services organizations. She called one of the numbers and was given the same advice that the agent had provided. She was also told that she could contest the charges in a hearing. After being informed of those rights, Cordova signed the stipulation waiving them. This sequence of events is indistinguishable from the procedural due process afforded in Benitez, and there we held that that the alien received ample constitutional protection. 6 5 In Benitez, the alien argued that his waiver of rights was not voluntary. 186 F.3d at 660 n.9. However, because the alien failed to show prejudice, the court did not consider the argument on appeal. Id. 6 Citing Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Cordova contends that the IJ’s failure to make a determination of the voluntariness of her waiver of rights is akin to a district court’s failure to conduct a plea colloquy prior to accepting a guilty plea. This contention is without merit. “Removal hearings are civil proceedings, not criminal; therefore, procedural protections accorded an alien in a removal proceeding are less stringent than those available to a criminal defendant.” Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d at 230. 10 Case: 14-50053 Document: 00513245181 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/23/2015 No. 14-50053 Moreover, the district court found that the record evidence supports an implicit finding that Cordova’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. We have construed an administrative record as showing that an IJ made an implicit finding of good moral character, which was a prerequisite for the grant of voluntary departure. Rodriguez-Gutierrez v. INS, 59 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, we now look to see whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the record supports an implicit finding that the IJ determined the waiver was knowing and voluntary. The district court began by observing that Cordova did not claim that the waiver was actually unknowing and involuntary. The court stated that Cordova had lived in this country since she was an infant and spoke English fluently. The court found that the waiver form she signed was “written in plain, non-legalese language that clearly stated the legal effect of the instrument.” Additionally, the court noted that the record demonstrated that an immigration officer explained to her the provisions in the form and what legal rights she was waiving. The district court stated that all of these facts support a finding that Cordova intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily signed the waiver form. The court further found that the IJ’s acceptance of the waiver “supports an implicit finding that the IJ determined” the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Under these circumstances, Cordova has not shown that the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous or that the court abused its discretion in not conducting an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Gutierrez, 343 F.3d 415, 421 (5th Cir. 2003). Our decision rests upon the particular facts as presented in this appeal. Of course, the better procedure is for an ICE agent to contemporaneously certify his explanation of rights and the alien’s waiver, as well as for an IJ to follow the regulation, which directs him to make the finding regarding voluntariness. § 1003.25(b). Nevertheless, 11 Case: 14-50053 Document: 00513245181 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/23/2015 No. 14-50053 the “failure of an agency to follow its own regulations is not, however, a per se denial of due process unless the regulation is required by the constitution or a statute.” Arzanipour v. INS, 866 F.2d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 1989). As discussed above, this court’s opinion in Benitez supports our conclusion that due process does not require a separate finding by an IJ that the pro se alien’s waiver is knowing and voluntary. 7 We reject Cordova’s claim that the IJ’s failure to make an express determination of voluntariness constituted a due process violation and conclude that such failure did not render her proceedings fundamentally unfair.