RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0388p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │ > No. 19-5801 v. │ │ │ PEDRO SILVESTRE-GREGORIO, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville. No. 2:18-cr-00155-1—J. Ronnie Greer, District Judge. Argued: February 5, 2020 Decided and Filed: December 22, 2020 Before: BATCHELDER, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Erin P. Rust, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. William A Roach, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. Stephen B. Kang, ACLU IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae. ON BRIEF: Erin P. Rust, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. William A Roach, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. Stephen B. Kang, Cody H. Wofsy, ACLU IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae. No. 19-5801 United States v. Silvestre-Gregorio Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Pedro Silvestre-Gregorio challenges his conviction for unlawful reentry of a removed alien by bringing a collateral attack against his underlying removal order from nineteen years ago. Silvestre-Gregorio alleges that the government violated his due-process rights at his 2001 removal proceeding by failing to provide him with counsel even though he was a juvenile at the time, and by failing to inform him that discretionary relief might be available. The district court rejected both claims and our precedent resolves each issue. Because this court has held that there is no constitutional right to government-provided counsel at civil removal proceedings and that an alien does not have a constitutional right to be informed of discretionary relief, we must AFFIRM. I. Silvestre-Gregorio first entered the United States illegally in February 2001 at the age of sixteen. He was detained within a few weeks of his arrival and had his removal hearing on March 22, 2001. He did not have an attorney, but he did receive the assistance of an interpreter and was accompanied by a social worker from Associated Catholic Charities, in whose care he had been placed. The interpreter spoke Spanish; Silvestre-Gregorio spoke little English and some Spanish, but his native tongue was “Chuj,” a regional dialect of northern Guatemala. However, he was still able to understand and answer open-ended questions in Spanish, including where he was born, how he crossed the border, and how he got from the border to Houston. But the immigration judge did have to repeat a few questions. Nonetheless, the immigration judge sought to develop the record and patiently explained to Silvestre-Gregorio his options, including his ability to appeal the decision and his right to be represented by retained counsel. The immigration judge explained to Silvestre-Gregorio that he would be given a list of attorneys who would be willing to represent him “at little or no cost” and that he could take some time to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals