N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M OHAM ED KAM AL ELDIN AB B AS, Pe titione r,

v. LOR ETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t

. No. 12-71555 Age n c y No. A096-684-420

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Argue d Fe brua

ry 3, 2016 Subm itte d April 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R EINHAR

DT, PAEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r M oha

m e d Abba s a

ppe a ls the B oa

rd of Im m igra tion Appe a l s’ (B IA) de nia l o f his re que st for a n a d j ustm e nt of sta

tus to a la wful pe rm a

ne n t re s ide nt. Abba s

c onte nds tha t the i m

m igra tion ju d g e’s (IJ) de nia l of disc re t iona ry re lie f for a n

a djustm e nt of s ta t u s , w h i ch wa s a ffirm e d by the B IA, wa s unla wful a n d 

# FIL ED

APR 07 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.unc onstitutiona l. W e ha ve jurisdic tion be c a use the pe titione r m a ke s a c olora ble c la im tha t the d e nia l of his a djustm e nt of sta tus wa s unc onstitutiona

l o r u nla wful. Hosse ini

v . G onzale

s , 4 71 F.3d 9 53 , 956 (9th C ir. 2 006). W e re je c t the c la im on the m e rits, howe v e r, a nd de ny the pe tition. 1. Abba s c onte nds tha t t h e I J ’ s use of t he polic e re port to que s tion him a bout

c re d it c a rd the f

ts wa s unla

wful unde r the B IA’ s pre c e de nt be c a use h e w a s ne ve r

c onvic te d of c re dit c a rd t

he ft or fra ud. The IJ’ s d e c ision to de n y disc re tiona

ry re lie f is unla wful w he n it “ re st[s] its d eci s i o n on a b a sis tha t is i m prope r a c c ording to its

own p re c e de nt.” C

hi On Tso v . Holde r , 450 F. App’ x 678, 679 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting He rnande z v . A shc r oft , 345 F.3d 824, 828–29 (9th C ir. 2003)). Although the Fe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e d o not a

pply in im

m igra tion proc e e dings, C inapian v . Holde r , 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th C ir. 2009), the B IA ha s wa rne d a ga inst g iving substa ntia l we ight
to a rre st re c o rds “ a

bse nt a c onvic tion or c orrobora ting e vide n c e o f the a lle ga tions

c onta ine d the re in.” In r e Arre guin De Rodrigue

z , 21 I. & N. De c . 38, 42 (B IA 1995);

se e a lso C hi O n Tso , 450 F. App’ x a t 678. In this c a se , howe ve r, Abba s c orrobora te d the polic e re port by adm itting to ste a ling c re dit c a rds a nd using t

he m fra udule ntly

. The IJ’ s de c i sion wa s not c ontra ry to la w. 2. C iting Matte r of Silv a-Tre v ino , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 687, 687 (B IA 2008),

v ac ate d by 26 I. & N

. De c . 550, 550 (B IA 2015), Abba s a rgue s tha t the polic e re port
Pa ge 2 of 5wa s not la

wfully a dm itte d into e vide nc e be c a use a n a rre st m

ust re sult i n a c onvic tion for it to be re le v a

nt. Silv a-Tre v ino , howe ve r, is not pe rtine nt be c a use it a ddre sse s the
que stion whe the r a c rim e qua lifie s a s a c onvic tion of m ora l turpitude a n d not whe the r

a pe titione r’ s a c tions c a n be c onside re d by a n IJ m a king a disc re tiona ry de c ision. Inde e d , in m a king a disc re tiona ry de c ision, the IJ m a y “ c onside r e vide nc e of c onduc t tha t doe s not re sult in a c onvic t ion” so long a s it “ doe s not c onside r i na ppropria te or irre le va nt fa c tors.” Pare de

s-Urre starazu v . I.N

.S. , 36 F.3d 801, 810 (9th C ir. 1994). 3. Abba s ne xt co nt en d s t ha t the IJ’ s re l ia nc e on the polic e re port d e nie d him

a funda m e nta lly fa ir he a ring in v iola tion of his due -proc e ss rights be c a use it “ c ove re d

a t im e in whic h [Abba s] wa s a juve nile .” T o p rove a c onstitutiona l due -proc e ss c la im ,
a nonc itiz e n m

ust show b oth a viola

tion a nd pre

j udic e . C olme nar v . I.N

.S. , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C ir. 2000). He re , only a fe w o f the m ulti pl e cr ed i t car d the fts on the polic e re p ort oc c ur r e d whe n Abba s wa s a juve nile

. The re fore , e ve n if the use of juve nile re p orts c onstitute d a viola ti o n , Abba s ha s not shown pre judic e be c a

use his

m ultiple c re dit c a rd the fts a s a n a dult a nd initia l de nia l of t he se the fts would still ha ve shown the sa m e p a tte rn of b eh av i o r a nd dishone s ty t ha t the IJ e m

pha siz e d in his de nia l of disc re tiona

ry re lie f. 4. Abba s a rgue s tha t t

he IJ viola

te d h is due -proc e ss rights by a c ting a s a bia se d

“ prose c utor a nxious to pic k hole s” i n his c a s e ra the r tha n a ct i n g as an im

pa rtia l

Pa ge 3 of 5a djudic a tor. T he Im m igra tion a nd Na tiona lity Ac t instruc ts IJs to “ inte rroga te ,
e xa m ine , a nd c ross-e xa m ine ” witne sse s d uring a he a

ring. 8 U.S.C

. § 1229a (b). This
que stioning, howe ve r, ha s its lim its. Although an IJ m a y “ a ggre ssive ly a

n d

som e tim e s ha

rshly ” que stion a witne ss, Me lk onian v . Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1 061, 1072 (9th C ir. 2003), he m a

y not b e c om e a “ pa

rtisa n a djudic a tor se e king to intim ida te ” the
pe titione r ra the r tha

n “ a ne utra l fa c t-finde r inte re ste d in he a r in g the pe titione r’ s

e vide nc e ,” C

olme nar , 2 10 F.3d a t 971. The re is no s e t de finition of whe n a ggre ssive
que stioning be c o m e s par t i s an a djudic a t ion. This c o urt ha s found in prior c a se s tha t IJs c rosse d the line whe n the y prohibite d pe titione rs f r o m providing im

porta nt
te stim ony , id

. a t 9 71–72; Re y e s-Mel en d e z v . I.N

. S. , 342 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th C ir. 2003), sa t i n m ora l ra the r tha n le ga l judgm e nt, id. , or re pe a te dly a c c use d pet i t i one rs of ly ing with no ba sis in fa c t , Riv e ra v . Ashc roft , 394 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th C ir. 2005),
supe rse de d by

statute on othe r grounds , R EAL ID Ac t, 119 Sta t. 231, § 106(c ). Although the IJ’ s sta

te m e nt tha t Abba s sou n de d like a “ wa lking c rim e wa ve ” whe n he trie d t o de n y t

he c re dit c a rd the ft wa s ina ppropria te , this pa ssing c om

m e nt did not d e m onstra

te the bia s, or “ de e p-se a te d fa vori t i sm o r a n ta gonism tha t would

m a ke fa ir judgm e nt im

possible ,” re quire d for a due -proc e s s viola tion. R i v e ra v . Muk ase y , 508 F.3d 1271, 1 2 7 6 (9th C ir. 2007) (holding tha t, a l though the IJ m a de ina p propria te sta te m e nts, the sta

te m e nts did not show unc onstitutiona l bia s). Unlike

Pa ge 4 of 5c a se s finding bia s, the IJ he re pe rm itte d Abba s to p re se nt al l t h e ev i de nc e tha t he

re que s te d a nd t o te stify a se c ond tim e re ga rding the c re dit c a rds ove r t he gove rnm e nt’ s obje c tion. M ore ove r, the IJ’ s ske ptic ism a bout Abba s’ s initia l d en i al o f the c re dit

c a rd the ft wa s wa

rra nte d a s Abba s la

te r a d m itte d to ly ing during the he a ring. 5. Abba s l a st c ont en d s t h a t the im m igra tion judge e rre d by a pply ing the

“ ex c e p tiona l a n d e xtre m e l y unusua l ha rdship” sta

nda rd from In re J

e a n , 23 I. & N

. De c . 373, 3 83 (B IA 2002) r at he r tha n t he p re sum

ption in fa v or o f a n a djustm e nt of
sta tus from Matte r of Arai , 13 I. & N. De c . 494, 496 (B IA 1970). Torre s-Valdiv ias

v . Ly n c h , 786 F.3d 1 147, 1154 (9th C ir. 201 5 ) pr eclude s tha t a rgum e nt. In TorresValdiv ias , we he ld tha

t the he ighte ne d sta

nda rd from In re J

e an a pplie s to the B IA’ s disc re tiona

ry de c ision on a djustm e nt o f s t a tus i f the B IA c onc l ude s tha t a pe titione r h as c om m itte d a viole nt or da

nge rous c rim e . Id. a t 1154–55. In this c a s e, t h e BI A de te rm i ne d tha t Abba s c om m itte d a viole nt or d a nge rous c rim e . It the re fore c orre c tly

a pplie d the “ e x c e ptiona l a

n d e xtre m e ly unusua l ha

rdship” sta

nda rd for re lie f. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

Pa ge 5 of 5