Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02983/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02983-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duzgun Atsiz
Petitioner
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2983

___________

Duzgun Atsiz, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

* Petition for Review of a Final

v. * Decision of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * 

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2007

Filed: May 22, 2007

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Duzgun Atsiz, a native and citizen of Turkey, was found removable as an

aggravated felon, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his petition for

deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss in part

and deny in part his petition for review of the BIA's decision.

Atsiz first contends the BIA's seven-sentence affirmance of the Immigration

Judge (IJ) decision violates his constitutional rights to due process, including

meaningful review and an individualized determination. "To demonstrate a violation

of due process, an alien must demonstrate both a fundamental procedural error and

Appellate Case: 06-2983 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311697
-2-

that the error resulted in prejudice." Lopez v. Heinauer, 332 F.3d 507, 512 (8th Cir.

2003). "An alien has no constitutional or statutory right to an administrative appeal.

Any rights to an administrative appeal are created by regulations issued by the

Attorney General, and under the regulations, aliens have no right to a full opinion by

the BIA." Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708 (8th Cir. 2003); see also Ngure v.

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 2004) ("As a matter of constitutional law, the

alien is entitled only to a reasoned decision from the agency, not from a particular

component of the agency."). Atsiz's due process claim fails because Atsiz does not

contend the IJ decision deprived him of due process, and we find the BIA effectively

adopted the IJ's findings, which we review as part of the final agency decision. See

Gemechu v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 944, 947 (8th Cir. 2004) ("To the extent that the BIA

adopted the IJ's findings, we review those IJ findings as part of the final agency

decision.").

Atsiz next contends the IJ improperly required him to prove he would be

tortured because of his ethnicity or religion, something not required for deferral of

removal under CAT. See Matter of S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1311 (B.I.A. 2000)

(en banc) (noting the respondent in a CAT proceeding "is not required to demonstrate

that he or she would be tortured on account of a particular belief or immutable

characteristic.") Atsiz raised this challenge in his first appeal to the BIA. The BIA

remanded the matter after finding the IJ improperly discredited Atsiz's testimony,

stating, "In light of our clear error finding, we find it appropriate to remand this case

for further consideration of whether the respondent proved it more likely than not he

will be tortured if returned to Turkey." J.A. at 81. When the IJ again denied deferral

of removal under CAT on remand, Atsiz appealed to the BIA but did not challenge the

legal standard applied by the IJ on remand in either the two-page explication of the

issues challenged in the notice of appeal, id. at 34-35, or in his fifteen-page brief. Id.

at 5-19. As a consequence, we are without jurisdiction to review this challenge.

Sultani v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 878, 884 (8th Cir. 2006) ("Failure to raise an issue

Appellate Case: 06-2983 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311697
-3-

before the [BIA] constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives

this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.").

Finally, Atsiz argues the IJ failed to consider all the evidence presented and

failed to consider the cumulative probability of torture in violation of applicable

regulations and case law. We lack jurisdiction to review these challenges because "we

do not have jurisdiction to review a final order against an alien who was found

removable for having committed an 'aggravated felony,' with the exception of

'constitutional claims or questions of law.'" Xiong v. Gonzales, No. 06-2007, 2007

WL 1077217, at *4 (8th Cir. April 12, 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)). Atsiz

contends Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), supports

his view we have jurisdiction over these challenges. The Ramadan court determined

"questions of law" include "the application of statutes and regulations to undisputed

historical facts." Id. at 654. While not controlling law, Atsiz urges we adopt the

reasoning in Ramadan and reach the merits of his attacks on the IJ's decision. But

Atsiz "cannot . . . secure review by using the rhetoric of a 'constitutional claim' or

'question of law' to disguise what is essentially a quarrel about fact-finding." Xiao Ji

Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 330 (2d Cir. 2006). At bottom, Atsiz

disagrees with the IJ's interpretation and use of and weight given his testimony, his

expert's testimony, and condition reports for similarly situated persons in Turkey.

These are factual determinations over which we have no jurisdiction. See Hanan v.

Gonzales, 449 F.3d 834, 836-37 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding court lacked jurisdiction

over habeas claim brought by alien, inasmuch as claim came down to challenges to

IJ's factual determination that it was not likely the current government of the removal

country would seek to torture alien if he was returned and, thus, did not depend upon

any constitutional issue or question of law). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack

of jurisdiction except as to the due process challenge, which we deny.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2983 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311697