T he H o no rable Lawrence P

. Za t ko f f , U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he E ast ern D i st ri ct of M i chi gan, s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0359n.06 No. 09-3277

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT AN DRES D OM IN G UE Z -G ONZ AL EZ , a ka Jo c e P it r e Co lon , P etitioner , v. ER IC HOLD ER , J R. , A tt or ne y G e ne r al, Respondent. / ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VIEW OF A N OR DE R OF TH E BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N A P P EA LS
OP IN ION

BEFORE: CLAY and GILMAN, C ircuit Judges; and ZATKOF F , District Judge. * C LAY , C ir cuit Judge. P et i t i o n er , An dre s Go n z al ez Do m i n gu ez , s ee k s re v i ew o f a Febr uary 26, 2009 order from the Boa rd of I mmigration Appe als (“B I A”) that affi rm ed t h e i mmigration ju d g e ’ s o r d e r

o f r e mo v a l p u r s u an t t o 8 U

. S. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ( i)

. Pe ti ti o n e r a ll e g e s th a t t

he imm ig ratio n jud g e ’s fa ilure to a dv ise him of his ri g ht to a pp ly fo r a sylum , w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l, and re lief under

the Convention Ag ainst Torture w as re versible e rror based on the failure to follow regulations and a re lated due proce ss c laim. For the rea sons se t f orth below, we DENY the petition fo r r e vie w o f t

he de c isi on

of the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls.No. 09-3277

2 BACK GR OUND Petitioner entere d the Unit ed S tates by crossing the Arizona borde r without inspection on or about Septem b er 1 0 , 2 0 0 3. Petitioner, who was bor n J uly 12, 1983, is a native-bor n citizen of Guatema la. He w as ar

rested f or driving without an operator’s license , and loca l a uthor ities contacte d the Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

(“D HS”) upon lea

rning of his immigration status. Petitioner was sente nced to 43 da

y s’ incar cer ation for lacki n g an operator’ s license, disorde rly conduct, a

nd tw o c ounts of

ob str uc tin g of fi c ia l bu sin e ss. Petitioner was ser

ved with N otice to A

ppear from DHS on May

20, 2008. On J une 3, 2008, Petitioner was plac ed in r emoval proce eding s and char g ed with be ing prese nt in the United States wi tho ut a dmi ssi on

or pa ro le , in vio la tio n o f 8 U .S. C. § 11 82 (a )( 6) (A )( i) . T wo he ari ng s w e re he ld befor e the immigr ation judge , the first on Jul y 8, 2008 and the se cond on August 12, 2008. The immigration judge e ntere d an orde r of r emoval at the c onclusion of the sec ond hear ing. At the first hea

ring befor e the imm igr ation judge on J uly 8, 2008, via video conf

ere nce f rom the Senec a County

J ail in Tiffin, Ohio, Petitioner was infor med of his ri gh t to have a n attorney prese nt. Petitioner advised the immigration judge that he fe are d returningto his native Guatema la. The he aringwas a djourned whe n Petiti o n er indicated he would like to find counsel bef ore proce eding . A sec ond hear ing w as conve ned on August 12, 2008, ag ain vi a video c onfer ence . Petitioner appea

red pr o s e a t th is h eari ng as wel l, a nd the imm ig ra

tio n ju dg e did

no t in qu ir e int o P e t i t i o n e r ’ s e f

f o rt s t o f i n d ana t t o r n e y. T h e s ec o n d

h ea ri n g wa s re l at i v el y

s h o rt , co n s i s t i n g p ri m ar i l y o f t h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge insuring that the fac ts underl y ing Petitioner’ s removability wer e admitted by

Petitioner. TheNo. 09-3277

The re moval of an a lien does not moot a pending appea l of an orde r of r emov al. See 1 Garcia-Flores v . Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439, 441 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (h o lding that a n alien suff

ers on g oin g inj ur

y of re -e ntr y ba r d ue to o rd e r o f r e mov a l) ; ac c or d Sa nta na -A lba rra n v . A sh c ro ft , 393 3 immigration judge the n inquired whe ther Petitioner wa s elig ible for voluntar y depar ture, c oncluding that he wa s not be cause he did not possess a passpor t or have funds for tr avel. Petitioner de clined to desig nate a

country for r emoval, stating that he pre fer red to s tay

in the United States. The g overnme nt desig nated Gua temala a s the country

of re moval. Th e imm ig ratio n ju dg e the n in qu ir e d in to w he the r P e titio ner ha d a ny fe ars of re tur nin g to Guatema la, to which P etitioner answere d in the aff irmative. Petitioner explained that his family had borrowe d money ($9,000) from a loan shark to pa y for medical expenses related to a disfigur ing bur n to Petitioner’s rig ht hand and a rm, and that this same loan sha rk had br oug ht Petiti oner to the U nited States to work to pay

the hig h-intere st debt owed. Petitioner indica ted that he f ear s that this loan shark will kill him or his family if he re turns to Guatemala beca use they cannot a ffor d to repa

y the debt. The immig ration judg e then a sked whe ther Petitioner ha d any fea rs of the g overnme nt of Guatema la har

ming him upon re turn, to which Petitioner re sponded in t he neg ative. The hear ing conclude d with the immigration judge or deringPetitioner removed to Guatemala a nd advising Petitioner of his rig ht to appeal the de cision to the BIA. Petitioner appea led t o the BI A by filing a Notice of Appea l on Aug ust 28, 2008. I n his appea l to t h e BI A, Petitioner attac hed a le tter re iterating his story about the loan sha

rk and his fe ar of returningto Guatemala . After the appe al was initiated, Petitioner obtained and w as re prese nted by

c ouns e l be fo re the B I A, wh o a rgue d th e same g ro un ds fo r r e lie f a sse rt e d in this t ime ly a pp e a l. Petitioner has bee n remove d to Guatemala during the pende ncy

of this action. 1No. 09-3277

F.3d 699, 701 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 2005). 4 On October 27, 2008, the BIA rema nded the case to the immigration judg e for issuance of a for mal written or or al dec ision. A written decision wa s issued by the im m i gra t i on judge on November

6, 2008. Br iefing c o n t inued bef ore the BIA, with Petitioner’s counsel f iling an appe ar an c e o n D e c e mb e r 9 , 2 0 0 8

. N e w b r ie f s w e r e f il e d b y b o th Pe ti ti o n e r an d I mm igr ation and Customs Enforc ement. The BIA denied Pet itioner’s appe al in an orde r date d Fe bruar y 26, 2009. This timely

petition for re view followe d.

STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW When the BIA issues its own opinion rather than summar ily adopting th e fi n dings of the immigration judge, this Court revie ws the d ec i s i o n of the B I A as the f inal ag ency

deter mination. Morgan v. Keisler , 507 F.3d 1 0 5 3 , 1 0 5 7 (6th Cir. 2007). The substantial-e vidence -on-the- rec ord standard of revie w require s that the BIA’s decision be upheld unless is it “manifestly contra ry to the law.” Castellano-Chacon v. I.N.S. , 3 41 F .3 d 5 33 , 5 52 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; see also Koulibaly v. Mukase y , 5 41 F .3 d 6 13 , 6 19 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) . T he a dmi nis tr a tiv e fi nd ings of fact mu st be up he ld unless this Court finds t hat “a ny rea sonable a djudicator would be comp el l ed to conclude to the

c on tr ary .” 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); se e als o I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacharias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Ra ma j v . G on za le

s, 466 F.3d 520, 527 ( 6th Cir. 2006). L eg al conc lusions of the BIA ar e re viewed de novo

. Patel v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 685, 692 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . T his Court re vie ws de novo claims of due pr ocess vio lations in removal proce eding s. Akhtar v. Gonzale s , 40 6 F .3 d 39 9, 40 8 (6 th Cir

. 20 05 ). F ina lly , thi s Co ur t de fe rs toNo. 09-3277

5 the ag ency ’s reasonable interpretations of its own regulations. Aburto-Rocha v . Mukase y , 535 F.3d 5 0 0 , 5 0 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Auer v. R obbins , 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997)). DI SCU SSIO N A. Stand ard for Regulatory and Due P roce ss Violation s Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s th a t th e imm ig ratio n judg e ’s fa ilure to ad vis e him of

his statut or

y ri g ht t o seek a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture w as a c lear violation of the regulations gove rning the deportation proce eding s. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c) . He

a lso a lle g e s th a t, o nly wi th re g ard to wi thh old ing of re mov a l and re lie f un de r t he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture , this error a

mounts to a violation of d u e proc ess. See R eno v F lores , 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) ( the Fifth Amendment of the C onstitut ion g uara ntees due proce ss of law to a liens in removal pr oc e e din g s) ; Ashki v. I

.N.S. , 233 F.3d 913, 921 ( 6th Cir. 2000) (discre tionary forms of r elief a

re not

su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt a du e pr oc e ss vio la tio n be c a us e the pe tit ion e r do e s no t have a pr ote c te d in te re st in such forms of r elief)

. Petitioner has cited no authority from this Circuit supporting his claim that a fa ilure of the imm ig ratio n ju dg e to ad

vis e an a lie n o f h is s ta tut or y ri g ht t o a

pp ly fo r d isc re tio na

ry re lie f i s a
reve rsible error. I nstead, Petitioner re lies upon authority from the Seve nth Circuit, Asani v. I.N.S. , 15 4 F .3 d 7 19 , 7 27 -2 9 ( 7th Cir . 1 99 8) , w hic h in

tur n r e li es upon

a uth or ity fr om t he Ni nth Cir c uit , Duran v. I.N.S. , 756 F.2d 1338, 1341- 42 (9th. Cir. 1985). The Seve nth Circui t h as d ev el o ped a do c tr ine in r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s in wh ic h r e ve rs a l is re qu ir e d w he re the imm ig ratio n ju dg e fa ils to fo llo w c le ar re g ulator

y mand a te s su c h that the a lie n “ may have be e n a ble to de mon str a te ” a

ri g ht t o relief , even if the re lief is discretionar

y . Asani , 154 F.3d at 729. Howeve r, in Asani , the cour t’sNo. 09-3277

6 ruling on the petitioner’s due proce ss claim was mere ly dicta bec ause the court re manded to g ive the petitioner an oppor

tunity to file an untimely motion to reope n, rely ing upon repr esentations from the g overnme nt that suc h a motion may be ava ilable under

new r eg ulations. Id. at 728-29. F urthermor e, Asani involved a si tuation wher e the petitioner was appar ently elig ible for the disc retionar y relief , which as discusse d below, is not true of the instant case. The ref ore, the Seventh Circuit’s pre cede nt does not support an a

utom at ic re versa l where the immigration judge f ails to follow mandatory regulations, despite Petitioner’s arguments to the contra ry . Moreove r, we adopt the same standard fo r s uc h a

re g ulator y vio la tio n a s th e on e thi s Co ur t us e s f or pro cedu ral due pr oc e ss c la ims – requiringan alien to show a simil ar le vel of pre

judice in orde r to demonstrate reve rsible er ror. “[R] eviewingan alleg ed due pr ocess violation is a two-step inquiry : f irst, whether

there was a def ect in the r emoval proc eeding; an d s ec o n d , whether the alien wa s prejudice d beca use of it.” Vasha v. Gonzales , 410 F.3d 863, 872 (6th Cir. 2005)

. Prejudice will not be presumed, e ven in ca ses wher e the err or allege d deprive d the alien of a statutory rig ht. Gishta v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 972, 979 (6th Cir. 2005). I t is no t se ttl e d w he the r t he imm ig ratio n ju dg e c omm itt e d a pr oc e dura l e rr or

in f a ili ngto ad v i s e P et i t i o n er

o f h i s s t at u t o ry

ri gh t s . P et i t i o n er , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , answe red in the af firmative when a sked whe ther he fea red r eturning to Guatemala

. Whil e he did not alleg e fa cts sufficie nt for relief , his lack of e x perie nce and his lack of c ounsel probably should have c aused the immigration judge to follow the regulatory mandate to a dvise aliens of their st atutory rig hts to apply for r elief f

or which they

wer e appar en t l y el i gi ble. Whether this err or is sufficie nt to support a proce dural dueNo. 09-3277

7 proce ss claim need not be settled at t his time beca use P etitioner has not shown sufficient pr ejudice to w arr ant r e ve rs a l. The pa rties dispute whethe r t h e issue of pre judice is proper ly

befor e this Court and what standard of

p re j u d i ce i s re quired in this Circuit. The g overnme nt asserts that in orde r to show prejudice , the alien must show that but for the alleg ed er ror, he “would have been e ntitled to continue residing in the United States.” Sako v. G onzales, 4 3 4 F. 3 d 8 5 7 , 8 6 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Denk o v. I.N.S. , 3 51 F .3 d 7 17 , 7 24 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) ); see a l s o Hu icoche a-Gome

z v. I.N.S. , 237 F.3d 696, 699-700 (6th Cir. 2001). Petitioner argues that the B IA did not addre ss the issue of pre judice, and so that issue is not before this Court, and a lternatively , that prejudice is shown simply by the fa ct that the alien’ s actions would have been dif fer ent had the e rror

not occur red. W h en t h e BI A adopted the immigration judge’ s ruling that Petiti oner “ did not establish a prima facie case for a sy lum or withholding of r emoval,” this r u l i ng implicitl y addre ssed the prejudice prong of the due proce ss analy sis. (Admin. R. 3). Ther efor e, pre judice is proper ly

befor e this Court. Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark .-Best Fre ight Sys., Inc. , 41 9 U.S. 281, 285-86 (1974) (“While we ma

y not supply

a re asoned ba sis for the ag ency ’s ac ti on that the ag ency itself has not g iven, we w ill uphold a decision of less than idea l clar ity if the ag ency ' s path may rea sonably

be d i s ce rn ed

. ”) (c i t i n g SEC v. Chenery Corp. , 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)). To establish the re quisite level of pre judice, Petitioner must show t h at t h e immigr ation judge ’s failure to a dvise him of his statutory rig hts “ led to a substantially differ ent outcome f

rom that which would have occur

red in the a

bsence of the [] violation[ ].” Graham v. M ukasey , 519 F.3d 546, 549-50 (6th Cir. 2008). He must, in ot her w ords, demonstrate “that the a lleg ed violation aff ecte dNo. 09-3277

8 the outcome of

the proc eeding s.” Gi

sh ta , 4 04 F .3 d a t 97 9 (c itatio n omi tte d)

. F ur the rm or e , “ we wi ll not simpl y

presume pr ejudice.” Id. B. P etitioner ’s Allegations of Pre judice This Court will reverse the decision of t he BI A affirming the orde r of r emoval only if it finds that the immigration judge’ s failure to advise P etitioner of his statutory rig hts prejudice d Petitioner’s ability to vindicate those rig hts. I n this inst ance , Petitioner would need to show that he has alleg ed, either be fore the immigration judge or on appea l, sufficient fa ctual alleg ation s to support the conclusion that he is elig ible for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re m o v al , o r relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture. i. Legal Stand ards for Relief I n order to de monstrate that he is e ligible for asylum, Petit ioner must show that he qua lifies

as a r efug ee by

providing evidenc e to “e stablish either that he ha s suffer ed ac tual past perse cution or t hat he has a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution.” Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 88 F .3 d 9 41 , 9 50 (6 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )

. T h i s p e r s e c u t i o n m u s tb e s h o w nt o b e “ o na c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y,
me mbe rs hip in a

pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up , o r p oli tic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A) . E ve n if Petitioner can de monstrate such a well-founde d fea

r of f uture perse cution, the Attorney Gene ral ha s dis c re tio n w he the r t o g ra

nt a sylum

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( A). Petitioner bea rs the burde n of providing evidenc e to support his claim for a sy lum. See Lin v. Holde r , 565 F.3d 971, 976 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987)). “An a pplication seekingwithholding of de portation fac es a more stringe nt burden of pr oof than one f

or asylum.” Mikhailev itch v. I.N.S., 146 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t ingNo. 09-3277

9 Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. at 431-32). The standard f or withholding of

rem o val is that the petitioner must demonstrate that there is a clea r probability , or that it is more likely than not, that he would fac e per secution in the country of re moval on acc ount of on e o f t h e five protec ted g rounds

enumer ated in the de finition of a ref ug ee. Id. Meeting this higher burden of

proof then e ntitles the applicant to mandatory

withholding of rem o v al rathe r than the trig g eringof the discr etionary standard of

a g rant of a sy lum. Cardoza-Fonseca , 4 80 U. S. at 42 9. I f Pe tit ion e r d oe s n ot m e e t hi s burden a s to his asy lum claim, it follows that he ca n n o t establish entitlement to withholdi ng of

remova l. See Zhao v. H

older , 569 F.3d 238, 246 n.10 ( 6th Cir. 2009). I n order to establish entitlement to relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture, a petitioner bear s the burden of showing “it is more likely than not that he or she would be torture d if remove d to the p r o p o s e d c o u n tr

y o f r e mo v a l. ” 8 C. F

. R. § 1 2 0 8

. 1 6 ( c ) ( 2 )

. T h is s ta n d ar d is a h ig h e r burde n than that for a

well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution. See Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 532 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . T or

tur e is d e fi ne d a s
any a c t by wh ic h s e ve re pa in o r s uf

fe ri ng , w he the r p hy sic a l or me nta l, i s in te nti on a lly inflicted on a person f

or such pur

poses as obtaining . . . information or a confe ssion, punis hin g him

or he r f or an a c t he or

sh e or a thi rd pe rs on has com mi tt ed or is suspected of

having committed, or intimi dating or coe rcinghim or a he r or a third person, or

for a ny rea son based on discr imination of any kind, when such p ain or s u ff er i n g is infl icted by or at the instigation of or w ith the consent or acquiesce nce of a pu bli c off

ic ial or oth e r p e rso n a c tin g in an off ic ial c ap ac ity
. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (1) ( emphasis adde d). Th is s tand ard fo r re lie f re qu ir e s c on sid e ri nga ll r e le va nt e vid e nc e , s uc h a s e vid e nc e of pa st torture inflicte d on the petitioner, e vidence that the petit ioner could reloc ate to a par t of the country wh e re he or

sh e wo uld be un lik e ly to be tor tur e d, e vid e nc e of

ma ss v iol a tio ns of

human r ig hts wi thi nNo. 09-3277

10 the c o u n tr

y a t is s u e , an d an y o th e r r e le v an t in f o r mati o n r e g ar d in g c o n d it io n s in th e c o untry of

remova l. 8 C.F .R. § 1208.16(c) (3). The burden for a CAT cla im is bot h broade r and na rrowe r than an asy lum claim. Se e Kam alt

ha s v . I NS , 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001) (“ Coverag e is broade r beca use a pe titioner need not show th at h e o r she would be tortured ‘ on acc ount of’ a pr otected g ro un d; i t is na

rr ow e r, ho we ve r, be c a

us e the pe tit ion e r m

us t sh owthat it

is ‘ more l ike ly

tha n n ot’ that he or she will be tortured , and not simply perse cuted . . . .” ) (e mphasis added)

. ii. P etitioner has n ot dem onstrate d that he is eligib le for relief Petitioner’s alleg ations essentially am ount to a fea r that he w ill be a victim of crime upon return to Guatema la. On t he surf ace , his fear

is clear ly one of substantial ha

rm, but Petiti oner ha s not demonstrated nor

alleg ed that the a lleg ed loan shark he fea rs is targ eting Petitioner beca use of his membership in a par ticular socia l gr oup. Asy lum is avai lable only when the a lien alleg es perse cution on acc ount of a prote cted g roup, which in the instant ca se wa s appar ently a part i cular social g roup, i.e., a

well-de fined g roup where members s hare essentially immutable char acte ristics “other than their risk of beingperse cuted.” Rr esh pja v . G on za le

s, 420 F.3d 551, 556 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Criminal a cts are not, on their own, sufficie nt to establish perse cution without a nexus t o a prote cted g round. Lumaj v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 574, 577- 78 (6th Cir. 20 0 6 ). T h er efore, Petitioner has not demonstrated, either befor e the immigration judg e or on appea l, that he is a ppare ntly elig ible for

a sylum . We fi nd

that Pe tit ion e r h a s n ot s ho wn the re qu ir e d pre

jud ic e fo r his re g ulator

y c la im as to asylum, nor his c onstitut ional claim as to w ithholding of re moval. See Zhao , 569 F.3d at 246 n.10 (Petitioner who ca

nnot establish eligibility

for a sy lum necessa

rily cannot mee t h i gh er burden f or withholding of r emoval).No. 09-3277

11 I n order to seek re lief under

the Convention Ag ainst Torture, a n alien may

be able to link fear of beinga victim of crime to a viable c laim for re lief if the ha rm he would suff

er w ould be either

at the hands of a

g overnme nt official or with the i mplicit acquie scenc e of such off icials. See 8 C. F .R. § 1 2 0 8

. 1 8 (a )( 1 ). Ho we v er , P et i t i o n er m ad e n o al l ega t i o nb ef

o re t h e B I A o r t h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge that th e loa

n shark he a lle g e dly fe ars is a g ov e rnme nt o ff ic ia l, n or tha t th e g ov e rnme nt o f G uate ma la is u na ble or un wi lli ngto pr ote c t Pe tit ion e r f ro m th is c ri min a l a c t. I

ns te a d, Pe tit ion e r n owargue s in his re ply br ie f t hat hi s

. . . po sit ion that the Gu a te ma lan g ov e rnme nt is un a ble or un wi lli ng to pr ote c t hi m, is hereby asser ted to be implicit in his oral testim ony and written submissi ons. I f the Guatema lan g overnme nt were neither una ble nor unwilling to protect the Petitioner, i t is reasona

ble to suppose that his fea r of r emoval would, at the le ast, have been tempere d. (A pp e lla nt’ s Repl y

B r. a t 3) . I ssu e s r a ise d o nly in r e ply are no t pr op e rl y

pr e se nte d to the c ourt
. United St ates v. Crozier , 259 F.3d 503, 517 (6th Cir. 2001)

. Howeve r, eve n if the ar g ument wer e pr op e rl y pr e se nte d, Pe tit ion e r a sk s thi s Court to i nf e r t hat th e Gu a te ma lan g ov e rnme nt i s c omp lic it in this l oan shar

k’s ac tivity

simply from the fea

r alleg ed by Petitioner befor e the immigration judge. Such alleg ation s are not sufficient to support a c laim for re lief. Petitioner, there fore , has not established that he is e ligible f or re lief under

the Convention Ag ainst Torture. CO NC LU SION I n o rd e r t o f

ind re ve rs ibl e e rr or fo r the imm ig ra tio n jud g e ’s fa ilure to a dv ise Pe tit ion e r o f h is statutory rig hts on either re g ulatory or constitutional gr ounds, Petiti oner ha d to demonstrate that the immigration judge’ s err or af fec ted the outcome of his r emoval proce eding s. Petitioner has not doneNo. 09-3277

12 so, and there fore he has not show n that the immigration judge’ s err or wa rra nts rever sal. Ther efor e, the pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w i s DE NI ED

.