alien must show that the hearing was “fundamentally unfair,” and (2) the collateral attack on a deportation hearing should be allowed if, in addition to being fundamentally unfair, the hearing effectively eliminated the right of the alien to challenge the hearing by means of judicial review of the deportation order. United States v. Zaleta-Sosa, 854 F.2d 48, 51 (5th a defendant is given notice that reentry into the United States without permission is a felony, and statute under which defendant was previously convicted provides sufficient notice to satisfy due process requirements, the penalty not provided for in the statute of conviction is adequately noticed by being called for in a separate statute); Kin Sang Chow v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 12 F.3d 34 (5th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>). Furthermore, a review of the record indicates
recognizing detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process holding that parole survives deportation holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone recognizing the right of attorney to attend deportation hearing via telephone holding that a notice recommending termination of an employee to the board without notice to the employee of employees right to attend and dispute the claims violated due process