FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 12, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 76 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 87 -3 42 -6 41 LUIS GUILLERMO PIESCHACON QUIJ ANO, MARIA C ECILIA PARRA LOPEZ, GABRIELA PIESCHACON PARRA, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re PRYOR, MARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Lui s Gu il le rm o P ie sc ha co n Qu ijan o (“ Pi es ch aco n” ), hi s wi fe Ma riaCeci li a

Parr a Lop ez, an d h is daug ht er Gab rie laPie sc ha co n P arraap pe al pro se f ro m th e Bo ardof I m

mig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) fin al ord er d en y in g P ie sc ha co n’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m

un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 15 8( a), wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 ), an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um anor De gr ad in g Tre atm en t o r Puni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). Pi es ch aco n c la im s tha t, i f de po rte d t o hi s n at iv e Co lo m

bi a, he wou ldface pe rs ecu ti onby the Rev ol ut io na ry Arm ed Fo rces of C ol om

bi a (“ FARC” ) on acco un t o f hi s p as t an ti -g ue rri ll a p ol it ic al act iv is m an d n eo -li be ral po li ti cal be li efs . On ap pe al , Pie sc ha co n n oton ly chal le ng es th e m eri ts of t he BIA’s de ci si on reg ard in g the ti m el in es s o f hi s ap pl ic at io n a ndhi s el ig ib il ity forasylu m . Buthe al so cla im s the BIA ig no redhi s two ar gu m en ts for why hi s due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io late d dur in g the rem ov al pro ceed in gs . W e h ol d t ha t the BIA p ro pe rly reject edth e fi rs t o f th es e due pro ces s ar gu m en ts , all eg in g b ia s i n the way th e Im m ig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”) co nduc te d t he pro ceed in gs . Howev er, upo n re vi ew of th e rec or d andaft er ca refu l co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we con cl ud e th at th e BIA erredby fail in g t o a dd res s Pi es ch aco n’s o th er due pro ces s cl ai m , sp eci fic al ly, th athi s fo rm er co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce. As ares ul t, 2we are u nabl e to rev ie w th is is su e p ro pe rly. Andinli gh t o f th e rea so nabl e

po ss ib il ity

th atPie sc ha co n was subs tant ia ll y pre jud ic edby the in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f hi s fo rm er co un se l, we re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . I. Thi s co urt re vi ews on ly the BIA’s de ci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atit ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n. Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . W e rev ie w con st itut io na l ch al le ng es , in cl ud in g a ll eg eddu e pr oc es s v io la ti on s, d e n ov o. Lap ai x v . Att ’y Gen., 6 05 F.3d11 38 , 11 43 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

“ Due pro ces s re qu ire s tha t al ie ns be gi ve n n ot ic e an d a n o pp ortu ni ty to b e he ardinth ei r rem ov al pro ceed in gs .” Id . “ Inord er t o e st ab li sh a du e p ro ces s vi ol at io n, an ali enm

us t s ho w th athe was d ep riv edof l ib erty witho utdu e p ro ces s of law, an d tha t the ass ert ederro r cau se d h im subs tant ia l p reju di ce.” Go nz al ezOro pe za v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 3 21 F.3d13 31 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci tati on s om itte d) . “ To s ho w subs tant ia l p reju di ce, anali enm us t d em on st rat e th at , inth e ab se nc e o f th e al le ge d v io la ti on s, the ou tc om e o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Lap ai x, 6 05 F.3dat 1 14 3. Pi es ch aco n c on te nd s tha t h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d b ecau se th e IJ co nduc te d the pro ceed in gs ina bi as edm anne r. He ass ert s tha t the IJ e xh ib it ed 3bi as by ign or in g re co rdev id en ce an d b as in g h is adve rs e-cr ed ib il ity de te rm in at io n on sel ect iv e ex cerp ts fro m th e rec or d, as well as b y

hi s al le ge dl y

“ in ti m id at in g,”

“ ho st il e,” an d “ sa rcas ti c” co nduc t dur in g t he he ari ng . Howev er, b ecau se th e rec or d re fle ct s tha t Pi es ch aco n was gi ve n aful l op po rtu ni ty to t es ti fy

an d b e h eardon hi s cl ai m s fo r rel ie f, we ho ldth athi s due pr oc es s ri gh ts were n otvi ol at eddu rin g h is rem ov al he ari ng . Pies ch aco n h ad m ul ti pl e o pp ortu ni ti es to ch al le ng e th e ch arg es ag ai ns t h im , pre se ntev id en ce an d arg ue hi s ca se , andap pe al th e fi na l ad ve rs e immig rat io n d et erm in at io n. Al so , m an y of the co m

m en ts an d i ns tru ct io ns th atPie sc ha co n re fers to , in cl ud in g t he IJ’s reque stth athe sh orte n the ad de ndum to hi s ap pl ic at io n, p ro vi de de ta il s ab ou t the ex hi bi ts th athe subm it te d, an d c on fin e h is an swe rs to hi s at to rn ey ’s qu es ti on s, ap pe ar t o h av e b eenaim edat f oc us in g t he pro ceed in gs an d e xc lu di ng irr el ev an t o r un rel iabl e ev id en ce. Pi es ch aco n h as no t s ho wn tha t thi s co nduc t s ub st an ti al ly pr ejud ic edhi m . Bey on d thi s, we h av e fo un d n o e vi de nc e th atth e IJex cl ud ed Pi es ch aco n fr om

tes ti fy in g abo utcla im s tha t h e rai se d i n h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n. The IJ’s que st io ns ab ou t wh ethe r Pi es ch aco n n eed edto be a U.S. cit iz enin or de r to ob ta ina real est at e li cen se an d abo uthi s kno wled ge of § 24 5( i) m ay ha ve be enun ne ces sa ry . Non ethe le ss , th is co nduc t fa ll s s ho rt o f de m on st rat in g t ha t the IJwas b ia se d a ga in stPie sc ha co n. Thus , bec au se Pie sc ha co n was gi ve n a n 4op po rtu ni ty to b e h eardinhi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs , andbe cau se th ere i s an

in su ffi ci en t b as is to co nc lu de th atth e IJ ’s con du ctsubs tant ia ll y pre jud ic edhi m , we ho ldth atth e IJ ’s con du ctdi d n otvi ol at e Pi es ch aco n’s due pro ces s ri gh ts . See id . II. St emm in g fr om

th ei r ri gh t t o afun da m en ta ll y fai r he ari ng un de r th e due pr oc es s cl au se of the Fif

th Am en dm en t, al ie ns ha ve a ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is tanc e of co un se l i n c iv il de po rta ti on pro ceed in gs . Dakan e v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 99 F.3d 12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ To es tabl is h t he in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n th e co nt ex t o f a d ep orta ti on he ari ng , an a li enm us t es tabl is h t ha t h is or h er co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntto th e p oi ntth atitim pi ng edth e fu nd am en ta l fai rn es s o f th e h eari ng .” Ali v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 6 43 F.3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 thCir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . The al ie n m us t al so est ab li sh pr ejud ic e, whi ch“ ex is ts when th e p erfo rm an ce o f co un se l i s s o i na de qu at e th at th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t b utforth e at to rn ey ’s erro r, th e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ldhave be endi ffer en t.” Id . (qu ot in g Dak an e, 39 9 F .3dat 12 74 ). The reco rdrefl ect s tha t Pi es ch aco n, p ro ceed in g p ro se, a de qu at el y rai se d a cl ai m be fo re the BIA th athi s at to rn ey ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce dur in g h is 5rem ov al pro ceed in gs . Spe ci fic al ly, in hi s b rie f ap pe al in g t he IJ’s d eci si on ,

Pi es ch aco n a ss ert edth athe “ di d n othave a go odde fen se by [his ] lawy er, b ecau se [th e la wy er] di dn ’t in si stto sh ow the ev id en ce atth e h eari ng or t he ev en ts ex pe rie nc edby [Pies ch aco n],” an d t ha t h is att orne y was n eg li ge ntforfai li ng to subm itev id en ce o n t im e. Even if the pre se nt at io n o f th is in effe ct iv e-as si st an ceof -co un se l cl ai m

m ay ha ve lac ke d t he cla rity

an d d ep th th atwe typic al ly dem an d, we ha ve lo ng em

br acedth e p rin ci pl e th atpro se b rie fs sh ou ldbe co ns tru ed li be ral ly. Gom ez-Di az v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 33 F.3d78 8, 7 91 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (em ph as iz in g tha t “ we m

us t co ns tru e” the in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l pl ead in gs of apro se p et it io ne r “ li be ral ly”); Lo ris m e v . INS, 12 9 F .3d14 41 , 14 44 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (“ W e rea d l ib eral ly brie fs fil edpro se.” ). W e th eref or e reco gn iz e th atPie sc ha co n ra is edanin effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m be fo re th e BIA tha t m eri te d i ts “reas on edco ns id erat io n.” Ay al a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 6 05 F.3 d 9 41 , 94 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Yet, the BIA’s de ci si on di d n otev enad dr es s Pi es ch aco n’s i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m , letalo ne gi ve th e cl ai m “ reas on edco ns id erat io n.” As a res ul t, we ar e unabl e to rev ie w th is is su e. See i d. (e xp la in in g t ha t wh enth e BIA

“ ha s fa il edto gi ve reas on edco ns id erat io n o r m ak e ad equa te fin di ng s” in ad dr es si ng a pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m s, “ we are unabl e to rev ie w th e d eci si on ”). W e 6reco gn iz e th atth e BIA i s n otrequi redto sp eci fic al ly addres s ea chcla im th ata pe ti ti on er m ak es or e ach pi ece o f ev id en ce tha t a p et it io ne r pr es en ts , pro vi de d tha t itha s co ns id eredth e is su es rai se d a ndan no un cedit s d eci si on interm s s uf fic ie ntto en ab le a rev ie win g c ou rt t o p erce iv e th atitha s “ he ardan d t ho ug htan d n otm erel y reac te d.” Id. (quo ti ng Tan v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 46 F.3d13 69 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 )). Bu t, i n thi s ca se , th ere i s s im pl y no ev id en ce tha t the BIA ev er re vi ewed th e is su e. W ere i t cl ear t ha t Pi es ch aco n h adno t s uf fere d any preju di ce as a res ul t o f th e al le ge d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f hi s fo rm er co un se l, we m ig htsetth is du e pr oc es s cl ai m

asi de an d p ro ceedto co ns id er Pi es ch aco n’s re m ai ni ng cla im s. Cf. Dak an e, 39 9 F .3dat 1 27 5 (a ffi rm in g t he BIA’s de ni al of p et it io ne r’s m ot io n t o reo pe n b as edon in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b ecau se th atm ot io n fa il edto ad dr es s h ow n on -d efi ci en t as si st an ce wo ul d h av e ch an ge d t he BIA’s rem ov al pr oc eed in g) . Butinreject in g P ie sc ha co n’s ar gu m en ts reg ard in g t he ti m el in es s o f hi s ap pl ic at io n a ndhi s el ig ib il ity forasylu m , th e BIA s pe ci fic al ly poi nt edto th e in su ffi ci en tl y

de ta il edna tu re o f Pi es ch aco n’s t es ti m on y , th e fai lu re t o a de qu at el y subs tant ia te th e ev id en ce an d c on ne ctitto Pie sc ha co n’s cl ai m s, an d t he fai lu re t o pr ov id e su ffi ci en t co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce. Thes e are all pre ci se ly the is su es th at wou ldbe ex pe ct edto ari se if Pi es ch aco n’s al le ga ti on s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f 7co un se l wer e true —tha t i s, i f co un se l h adfai le d t o p rep are f orth e cas e, fai le d t o el ic itrel ev an t fa ct s fr om

Pie sc ha co n’s t es ti m on y , andfai le d t o s ub m itke y ev id en ce t o the co urt i n ati m el y m an ne r. Thi s i nd ic at es “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le po ss ib il ity

th atbu t fo r th e at to rn ey ’s erro r, th e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ld ha ve be endi ffer en t.” Id . at 1 27 4. Inli gh t o f th e fac t tha t the BIA h as y etto rev ie w th is cri ti cal is su e, we fo ll ow the Supr em e Co urt’s d ire ct io n i n c on cl ud in g th at“ th e p ro pe r co ur se . . . is to rem an d t o t he ag en cy forad di ti on al in ve st ig at io n orex pl an at io n.” INS v. Ven tu ra, 5 37 U.S. 12 , 16 , 12 3 S . Ct. 3 53 , 35 5 (2 00 2) . The go ve rn m en t u rg es us ina fo ot no te to setasi de th is is su e b ecau se Pi es ch aco n h as no t co m

pl ie d wi th th e requi rem en ts th atth e BIA ad op te d i n M at te r of Loza da , 19 I. & N. Dec. 63 7 (B IA 19 88 ), fo r m ak in g o utan in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m . Howev er, as we em ph as iz edab ov e, th e BIA's de ci si on di d n otad dr es s the in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m , let al on e Pi es ch aco n's co m

pl ianc e wit h t he BIA’s de ci si on inLoza da . Rem an d t hu s en ab le s the BIA to ap pl y

it s i ns ti tu ti on al ex pe rti se an d, i f ne ces sa ry , to cla rif y whe th er Pi es ch aco n m etth e requi rem en ts setforthinLoza da . 1 We note that Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F .3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007), has re cognized 1 an exception to the ordinar y rema nd rule in “r are circ umstances” wher e the unde cided que stion involves a pure ly

leg al issue that is proce dural in nature . I d. at 1330. Howe ver, theg overnme nt neither r efe renc es Calle in its brief nor disc usses whethe r the L ozada re quirements ar e so nonfac tual and proc edura l in nature that Calle would e ven contr ol. For the se re asons, we do not consider he re the scope of Calle or whe ther it applies to the L ozada re quirements.

8W e th eref or e rem an d the cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s op in io n. Indo in g s o, we d ecl in e to ad dr es s atth is ti m e Pi es ch aco n’s o th er cl ai m s reg ard in g the ti m el in es s o f hi s ap pl ic at io n, h is eli gi bi li ty for as y lu m an d withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andth e BIA’s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il ity fin di ng . PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART, GRANTED I N PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDI NGS.

9