(Potentially) Resolving the Ever-Present Debate over Whether Noncitizens in Removal Proceedings Have a Due-Process Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel

• Author: Walter S. Gindin
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law
• Pages: 669-698

      



669

(Potentially) Resolving the Ever-Present

Debate over Whether Noncitizens in

Removal Proceedings Have a Due-Process

Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel

Walter S. Gindin

ABSTRACT: A noncitizen in removal proceedings who alleges that his or

her counsel’s deficient performance detrimentally affected his or her claim

can file a motion to reopen the proceedings based on a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. The circuit courts are split as to whether a noncitizen’s

right to reopen his or her removal proceeding is solely a matter of

administrative discretion or a fundamental right rooted in the Fifth

Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This Note applies a modified version of

the Supreme Court’s procedural-due-process balancin g test and the

European Court of Human Rights’ three-tiered Engel test to demonstrate

that despite their classification as “civil” matters, removal proceedings

implicate the same liberty concerns present in criminal prosecutions, and

therefore should receive at least one constitutional safeguard afforded to

criminal defendants: an unqualified constitutional right to effective

assistance of counsel.

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 671

II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 673

A. CONSTITUTIONAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL SOURCES OF THE RIGHT

TO COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL AND “QUASI-CRIMINAL” CIVIL

PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................... 673

1. The Supreme Court’s Procedural-Due-Process

Balancing Test ........................................................................ 674



 J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2011; M.A., New York

University, 2008; B.A., New York University, 2005. I dedicate this Note to the memory of my

father, Solomon, and to all immigrant parents who dare to provide a better life for their

children. I want to especially thank my wife, Jane, for always inspiring stories about us; my

mother, Marina, and brother, Alex, for their unconditional love and support; and my friends

who never stop believing. I am grateful to the editors and student writ ers of Volumes 95 and 96

of the Iowa Law Review for all their guidance and help with putting together this Note.

670 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 96:669

a. Tier 1 ................................................................................. 674

b. Tier 2 ................................................................................. 674

c. Tier 3 ................................................................................. 674

2. Engel and the Meaning of “Criminal Charge” ...................... 675

B. ACCESS TO COUNSEL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS ................................ 677

1. The History and Jurisprudence Behind the “Civil” Label ... 677

2. Privilege or Right to Counsel in Removal Proceedings? ........ 678

C. RECOGNITION OF A DUE-PROCESS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

OF COUNSEL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS ............................................ 680

III. THE CIRCUIT SPLIT ................................................................................ 682

A. THE MINORITY CIRCUITS ................................................................. 682

B. THE MAJORITY CIRCUITS .................................................................. 683

1. “Fundamental Unfairness” and “Prejudice” ......................... 684

IV. ANALYSIS: THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................ 687

A. THE PROCEDURAL-DUE-PROCESS BALANCING TEST ............................ 687

1. Tier 1: The Initial Presumption: Deprivation of Liberty

Interest .................................................................................... 688

2. Tier 2: The Mathews Factors .................................................. 689

a. Private Interests .................................................................. 689

b. The Risk that the Procedures Used Will Result in

Erroneous Deprivation of the Private Interest ....................... 689

c. The Government’s Interest ................................................... 690

3. Tier 3: Rebutting the Presumption ....................................... 691

B. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ ENGEL TEST.................. 692

1. Element 1: Domestic Classification of the Proceeding ....... 692

2. Element 2: Inherent Nature of the Noncriminal

Offense .................................................................................... 693

3. Element 3: Nature and Severity of the Potential Penalty .... 694

V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT DECISION..... 696

A. OUTCOME 1: SCOTUS RECOGNIZES A DUE-PROCESS RIGHT TO

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS ......... 696

B. OUTCOME 2: SCOTUS DOES NOT RECOGNIZES A DUE-PROCESS

RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN REMOVAL

PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................... 697

VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 697