Opinion ID: 3011816
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deportation Order

Text: Persons convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 of illegally reentering the Country after an earlier deportation may collaterally attack the initial deportation order if they can show that they were deprived of their due process rights at those deportation proceedings. See United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 837-38 (1987); 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). According to Carvajal-Garcia, his earlier deportation following his state crime convictions – an element of his more recent federal convictions for illegal reentry – violated his due process rights because no court of competent jurisdiction ever issued a valid order of deportation. We exercise plenary review over alleged due process violations, see United States v. Tyler, 281 F.3d 84, 90 (3d Cir. 2002), and the record before us is clear that no such violation occurred. Carvajal-Garcia filed a request for political asylum in September 1989. On July 22, 1990, following a hearing (at which Carvajal-Garcia was represented by counsel), a United States Immigration Judge denied the request, and ordered him to depart the Country voluntarily before October 29, 1990, or he 6 would be deported. The Immigration Judge further stated that the deadline for appealing the decision was August 6, 1990, and told both sides they would be served with a written copy of his memorandum decision. Indeed, the appendix in this case contains a document titled “Oral Decision of the Immigration Judge,” see App. at 323-28, but the final page of the decision contains a line for the judge’s signature that is blank. Carvajal-Garcia argues that because his original voluntary deportation order was unsigned, it had no legal effect. Furthermore, he alleges that the Government cannot establish that the Immigration Judge’s decision was ever conveyed to him. These arguments are not persuasive. The transcript of his asylum hearing explicitly reflects that Carvajal-Garcia understood the terms of the Immigration Judge’s order, and that a written copy of the Court’s oral decision was provided to him. See id. at 320. The terms of the Judge’s order as explained during the hearing are identical to those found in the written copy. In addition, counsel prepared a Notice of Appeal on Carvajal-Garcia’s behalf and dated it August 6, 1990, the deadline set by the Immigration Judge, but the appeal was denied after it was untimely filed on September 5, 1990. See id. at 330, 331. Finally, Carvajal-Garcia does not cite any statutory or regulatory authority for the proposition that an immigration judge’s oral decision is not operative unless signed. In sum, Carvajal-Garcia cannot demonstrate that his original deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair. Hence there was no violation of his due process rights.