Yaridia Perez Green v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1579
YARIDIA MAGDALENA LOMEL PEREZ GREEN, a/k/a Magdalena Lomeli
Perez,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security.
Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 6, 2018
Before AGEE, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jordan Forsythe Greer, CAULEY FORSYTHE LAW GROUP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Brianne Whelan
Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yaridia Magdalena Lomel Perez Green, a native and citizen of Mexico, was
removed from the United States on July 18, 2000 pursuant to an expedited order of
removal. She now seeks review of a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order
dated April 23, 2018, which reinstated the July 18, 2000 removal order. Green first
contends that her removal order was not properly reinstated, asserting that the order was
deficient for failing to state the date and place she allegedly illegally reentered the United
States. Because this information is not required, we find this claim to be unavailing. See
Avila-Macias v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 108, 114 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding that neither
reinstatement statute nor implementing regulation requires agency to specify the date and
place of alien’s illegal reentry in notice of reinstatement proceedings); 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.8(a), (b) (2018). Next, Green asserts that the reinstatement was procedurally
improper because she was granted parole in order to pursue adjustment of status based on
her marriage to a United States citizen. Because her parole, which has since expired, did
not constitute an admission or legal entry into the United States, this claim is meritless.
See Cruz-Miguel v. Holder, 650 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir. 2011).
Finally, Green contends that her due process rights were violated because counsel
was not present during the reinstatement proceeding. She asserts that she had a right to
counsel because she was being investigated for potential criminal charges. To succeed on
a procedural due process claim, Green must demonstrate “(1) that a defect in the
proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that the defect prejudiced the
outcome of the case.” Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); accord Rusu
2
v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-22 (4th Cir. 2002). The record discloses that Green was never
charged with a crime and that she otherwise fails to show that an alleged defect
prejudiced the outcome of her case. Her due process claim is therefore unavailing.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3