PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAUL QUINTEROS GUZMAN, a/k/a Saul Quinteros-Guzman, a/k/a Saul Quinters Guzman, Defendant - Appellant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAW PROFESSORS, IMMIGRATION SCHOLARS, AND CLINICIANS, Amici Supporting Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00031-NKM-JCH-1) Argued: January 26, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Rushing joined. ARGUED: Erin Margaret Trodden, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Kathryn Anne Rumsey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Cullen, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Kari Hong, Ninth Circuit Appellate Program, BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL, Newton, Massachusetts; Stephen Manning, INNOVATION LAW LAB, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae. 2 NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Saul Quinteros Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was found in the United States after having previously been removed under the expedited removal procedure of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). He was charged with reentry without permission after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He filed a motion to dismiss his indictment, maintaining that his earlier removal was invalid as fundamentally unfair under § 1326(d) because he was denied the right to counsel, in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), and that he suffered prejudice. The district court denied his motion, and Guzman was convicted. On appeal, we conclude that the Due Process Clause and the APA did not apply to his removal proceeding and therefore affirm. I Guzman crossed the Rio Grande into the United States without inspection or an entry document at 9:30 p.m. on March 16, 2016. Soon thereafter, immigration officers encountered him near McAllen, Texas, a city contiguous to the river, and placed him in an expedited removal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). When Guzman was unable to produce a valid entry document, the officers notified him that he was inadmissible and invited him to provide information otherwise, including whether he feared returning to his home country. Guzman confirmed that he was from El Salvador and that he came to the United States “to look for work.” He also stated that he did not “fear that [he] [would] be persecuted or tortured” if sent back to El Salvador. After Guzman was advised that if he 3 was seeking asylum, he would be provided counsel, he decided not to seek asylum and instead stated that he would to return to El Salvador. Accordingly, immigration officers issued Guzman an order of removal on March 18, 2016, under the expedited removal procedure, and on March 31, he was removed. Over …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals