Affirming the district court's holding that Herrera-Pagoada couldn’t collaterally attack (and thereby invalidate) his sentence for illegal reentry of an alien who has been previously removed in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (B). Despite Herrera-Pagoada’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective, the Court held that he failed to satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)’s third condition, that “the entry of the removal order was fundamentally unfair” because an alien has no due process right to be advised of discretionary relief. Herrera-Pagoada’s claim was also procedurally barred for filing his petition beyond the one-year limitation period and for failing to raise his § 1326(d) arguments before the district court.
Date of Decision