No. 20-6752
Juan Tinoco-Garcia v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: due-process immigration immigration-law judicial-advisement non-citizen non-citizen-rights padilla-v-kentucky post-conviction-relief removal-proceedings
Latest Conference:
2021-02-19
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does an immigration judge's failure to advise an immigrant in removal proceedings of their apparent eligibility to seek post-conviction relief under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 360 (2010), and its progeny violate a non-citizen's right to due process?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does an immigration judge's failure to advise an immigrant in removal proceedings of their apparent eligibility to seek post-conviction relief under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 360 (2010), and its progeny violate a non-citizen's right to due-process
Docket Entries
2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-12-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 3, 2021)
Attorneys
Juan Tinoco-Garcia
Nora Kelly Hirozawa — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent