The Honor able Ar thur J . Tarnow , United States Dist rict Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0735n.06 Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

DO B RO SL AV B ULAT OV I C; M I NAB ULAT OV I C, Pe tit ion e rs , v. ERI C H

. H O L D E R , JR

. , A t t orne y Ge ne ra l; DEPARTMENT OF HOMEL AND SECURI TY, Re sp on de nts

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF A N ORDEROF T HE BOARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

BEF ORE: BATCHEL DER, Chief J udg e, and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg e; TARNOW, D istrict J udg e. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. I n these c onsolidated appe als, Dobroslav B ulatovic and his wife , Mi n a B ulatovic, petition thi s c ourt fo r r e vie w o f t

wo a dv e rs e de c isi on s o f t

he B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls ( “ B I A” ). I n Ca se No . 0 8- 35 74 , p e tit ion e rs se e k re vie w of the B I A’ s Apr il 15, 20 08 , o rd e r s umm ari ly dis mis sin g the ir appea l of the immigration judge ’s (“I J ”) J une 7, 2007, decision denying r elief a nd order ing r emoval to their native c ountry , Monteneg ro. In C as e No

. 08-4599, petitioners see k revie w of the B I A’s No ve mbe r 3 , 2 00 8, or de r g rant ingthe ir mot ion to r e c on sid e r t

he Ap ri l 20 08 or de r b ut a g a inNos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

Mina Bulatovic does not asser t independent g rounds for r elief. 1 - 2 - dismiss ing the ir appe al. For the re asons stated be low, we dismiss the petition for review in Case No. 08-3574 for

lack of jurisdiction and deny

the petition in Case No. 08-4599. I. Dobroslav B ulatovic and Mina B ulatovic (“ petitioners”) are natives and c itiz ens of Monteneg ro, par

t of the for

mer F eder al Republic of Yug oslavia. They arr ived in the United States on J anuar y 21, 2001, as nonimmigra nt visit ors with authorization to remain unti l J uly 20, 2001. T h e y o v e r s ta y e d th e ir v is a s , an d , o nJa n u ar

y 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , D o b r o s la

v f il e d ana p p li c a ti o nf

o r a s y lum with Mina as a de rivative be nefic iary . His application wa s denied by an asy lum officer , and petitioners wer e placed in remova l proce eding s as noni mmigra nt aliens who remained in the United States for a time longe r t han permitted. Petitioners conce ded removability , but Dobroslav re newe d his application for a sy lum, with Mi na as his depe ndent, and a lso requeste d withholding of r emoval and prote ction under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”)

. 1 As the basis for

relief , Dobroslav alleg ed in his application that he was conscr ipted into the Yu g os lavia

n a rm y in 19 99 and

de se rt e d a ft e r a

pp ro xima te ly

tw e nty da y s b e c a us e he did no t w a nt t o participate in the per secution of the A lbanian minority during th e NA T O b ombardment of Yug oslavia. He claimed that a fter his de sertion, the Monteneg rin police sea rche d for him and se nt him notices to appea

r. Dobroslav did n o t re s p o n d and made plans to leave Yug oslavia. He and Mina marrie d in Septe mber 2000 and obtained visas to e nter the United States. Dobroslav a lleg ed that, by this ti me, h i s d es ertion wa s a matter of rec ord, and he fea

red that he would be a

rre sted,Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

The I J denied pe titioners’ reque st f or voluntary depar

ture be cause Dobroslav testified that 2 he would not abide by

a voluntary

depar ture orde r. - 3 - detained, a

nd mistreat ed if he were to remain in Yug oslavia. Petitioners there afte r ca me to the United States. On J une 7, 2007, following a remova l hear ing at which Dobr oslav testified about his alleg ed f e ar o f r e p r i s a l s t e m m i n g f

r o m h i s m i l i t ar

y d e s e rt i o ni f h e w e r e t o r e tu r nt o M o n t e n e g r o , t h e IJ

re nd e re d a

n o ra l dec isi on in wh ic h she de nie d all fo rm s of r e lie f. Th e I J mad e an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination based on her

finding s that Dobroslav ’s t es t i m ony was inconsistent with his written application, his application omit ted key information, and he failed to submit available cor roborating

e vid e nc e . T he I J fur

the r c on c lud e d tha t, ev e n if Dob ro sla v’ s cla ims we re c re dib le , h e ne ve rt he le ss failed to establish his elig ibilit y for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, or CAT protec tion. The I J thus order ed petitioners’ remova l to Monteneg ro. 2 Petitioners, throug h counsel, timely appea led t he I J ’s decision to the BI A. I n their Notice of Ap p e a l, p e ti ti o n e r s c h e c k e d a b o x in d ic a ti n g th a t th e y in te n d e d to f il e a s e p ar a te w r itten brief or statement. I n a one-pag e adde ndum to the Notice of A ppeal, pe titioners set forth their “ Reasons for Appea l,” alleg ing in ter se terms that the I J ’s “adve rse cre dibilit y finding was ‘c lear ly

err oneous[,] ’” that t h e I J “r eli ed upon a mischa rac terization of the evidenc e in finding that [petit ioner] had not pr ov e n th a t he ha d be e n pe rs e c ute d on ac c ount of a pr ote c te d g ro un d[,]” and

tha t th e I J “e rr on e ou sly he ld t hat th e a bs e nc e of

a fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on

by [Do br os lav’ s] f

a mily may be imp ute d to [Dobroslav].”Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)( 2)(i)( E) provide s in pertinent par t that “[a] s ingle [BI A] member or 3 pa ne l ma y su mma ri ly dis mis s any a

pp e a l or po rt ion of any a

pp e a l in a ny c a se in w hic h .

. . [t]he pa

rt y conce rned indicates on For m E OI R-26 or For

m E OI R-29 that he or she will f ile a brie f or state ment in su pp or t of the a pp e a l and , the re a ft e r, do e s no t fi le su c h br ie f or state me nt, or re a so na bly e xpla in his or her failure to do so, w ithin the tim e set for filing.” See also BIA P rac tice Manual § 4.16(c)

. - 4 - I n a notice da

ted Aug ust 21, 2007, the BIA sent petitioners’ c ounsel a brie fing schedule and enclose d uncorr ecte d but complete transcripts of t he I J ’s oral decision and the testimony of re cord. Th e no tic e se t a

Se pte mbe r 1 1, 20 07 , d e a dli ne fo r the re c e ipt of pe tit ion e rs ’ b ri e f. Th e no tic e a lso included two wa

rning s: first, if petitioners indicated the ir intent to file a brie f on a p p eal but then failed to do so, the B I A may summarily

dismiss their appe al pursuant t o 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)( 2)(i)( E); sec ond, a request for an extension of time to file a brief “must be re ceive d on or b ef o re t h e e x p i ra t i o no f t h e i n i t i al b ri ef i n g s ch edu l e. ” (E mp h a s i s o m i t t ed

. ) T h es e w arn i n gs 3 confor med to the e s t ab l i s h ed pra ctices a nd proce dures of

the B I A set for

th in the BIA Prac tice Manual, whic h provides off i ci al guidance to parties and c ounsel who appe ar be fore the B I A. See BIA Prac tice Manua l §§ 4.4(b)(iv)( C), 4.7(c) (ii). Upon petitioners’ ti mely motion, the dea dline was extended to October 2, 2007. The B I A’s notice g ranting petitioners’ e x tension reque st reiterated the sta nd ard su mma ry dis mis sa l w arn ingand

fu rt he r a dv ise d th a t [t ]he Boar d g ener ally does not g rant more than one e x tension per pa rty or per case , if detaine d. There fore , if y ou have r ece ived an e x tension, y ou should assume t hat y ou will not be gr anted a

ny further extensions. I f y ou file y our brief

late, y ou must file it along with a motion fo r co nsideration of y our late- filed brief

. . . . The motion must set forth in d et ai l the rea sons that pr e ve nte d y ou

fr om fi lin g y our br ie f on time . You sh ou ld s up po rt

the mot ion

wi th aff idavits, decla

rations, or other evidence

. Only one such motion will be consider ed by the B oard.Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 5 - * * * I f y ou h a v e an y

qu e s t i o n s a

b o u th o w t o f

i l e s o m e t h i n g a tt h e B o ar d , y o us h ou ld re view the B oard’ s Practice Manual a nd Questions and Answe rs at www.usdoj.g ov/eoir. Despite these war

nings, pe t i tioners fa iled to file a brie f or r equest a nother e x tension befor e the deadline pa ssed. On Octobe r 3, 2007, counse l for petitioners se nt a moti o n t o the B I A, which wa s rec eived on October

4, 2007, reque sting that the B I A furnish th e s i gn ed , corr ecte d copies of the hear ing t r an s c r i p tan d

IJ ’ s d e c i s i o n , n o ty e tp r o v i d e d t o p e t i t i o n e r s , an d

r e s e tt h e b r i e f

i n g s c h e d u l e . In pe tit ion e rs ’ m oti on , c ouns e l a lle g e d th a t “ [d]ue to the fa c t tha t the I J may make e dit s and the e dit s may or may not be mater ial, [pe t i t ioners] cannot ra ise all issues for a ppeal until they

rec eive the ‘appr oved dec ision.’ The forwarde d decision was only a ‘roug h draf t’ that is unsigned, una

pproved and has not be en re viewed by a lawy er ( i.e. the I J ). ” C o u n sel claimed that petitioners would be

“ se ve re ly pr e jud ic e d if the a pp ro ve d tr ans c ri pts surf

a c e a t a la te r d a te ,” bu t di d n ot f

ur the r e xpla in the nature of the a lleg ed pre judice. He fu rt h er complained that the B I A’s fa ilure to provide a n

“ a pp ro ve d” tr ans c ri pt w a s p art of a br oa der “pat tern a

nd pr a c tic e of

fo rw ard inginc omp le te transcr ipts to m e in all of my ca s es , i .e. the una pproved, unsig ned, unedited tr anscr ipt of oral d e c i s i o n , d e s p i t e t h e o b l i g a t i o no f t h e [ IJ ] t o a

p p r o v e t h e t r an s c r i p t o f

o r a l d e c i s i o nw i t h i n1 4 d a ys [as re qu ir e d b y

8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 5].” Couns e l ma int a ine d th a t th e B I A w a s e ff e c tiv e ly “ e ng a g ingin

a sec re t d ec i s ion reg ardingwhether the unsig ned dec ision is s ubsequently being revised in suc h a way that it does not refle ct the dec ision dictated at the a ctual hea ring .”Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

Whil e p etitioners’ motion for re consideration was pending with the BIA, counse l for 4 pe tit ion e rs fi le d a

c omp la int

fo r m and a mus , o n b e ha lf of the pr e se nt p e tit ion e rs and ano the r c lie nt, in the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an to compel the E x ecutive Offic e for

I mmigration Review (“E OI R”) to furnish the “a p p ro v ed” tr anscr ipts of the remova l hear ing a nd I J ’s dec ision. P etitioners ultimately stipulated to dismi ssal of the a ction. - 6 - I n an orde r date d April 15, 2008, the BIA summarily dismiss ed petitioners’ a ppeal pur suant to 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3. 1( d) (2 )( i) (A ) a nd (E ), fo r f a ilure to s pe c if

y the re a so ns fo r t

he app eal so a s to pe rm it m e anin g fu l r e v i e w a n d f a i lur e to p ro vid e the pr omi se d a pp e llate br ie f o r o the rw ise re a so na bly explain the failure to do so within the time se t f or filing. Petitioners f

iled a timely

petition for re view of the summary

dismiss al orde r with this court and contempora neously filed a motion to rec onsider with the BIA. In t h e m o t i o n to rec onsider, petitioners r eiterated their re quest for “ approve d transcr ipts,” attache d a copy o f their Oc tober 4, 2007, motion, and included a n appellate brief challeng ing the merits of the I J ’s dec ision. 4 On Novembe r 3, 2008, the B I A g rante d petitioners’ mot ion to rec onsider but ag ain dismissed their a p p e a l. I n it s d e c is io n , th e B I A n o te d th a t d u e to an a d mi n is tr a ti v e e r r o r , it s A p ril 2008 decision inadve rtently

omitted a discussion of petitioners’ motion for a n approve d rec ord and to re set the brief ing sc hedule. The BIA cor rec ted this oversig ht by addre ssing the motion and denying it as untimely beca use it was filed two da

y s after the October 2, 2007, briefing deadline. The B I A adde d: Even if we wer e to addr ess [petiti oners’ ] m otion on the merits, the motion would be denied. The I mmigration J udg e did not make any corr ections t o the t ransc ript of the hear ings. The Boa

rd receive d, on September 10, 2007, a sig ned and c orre cted c opy of t h e I mmigration J udg e’s de cision. Only minor corr ections and c hang es we reNos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

Petitioners claim that they did not rec eive copies of t he correc ted transc ript and I J decision 5 until the certified a dminist rative r ecor d was re ceive d by this court. - 7 - made, none of which w arr anted se rving the par ties wi th the corr ecte d copy of the I mmigration J udg e’s de cision. [5] T h e B IA f

u rt h e r f o u n d n o e r r o r i ni t s p r i o r d i s m i s s a l o f p e t i t i o n e r s ’ a

p p e a l

. T h e B IA deter mined that petitioners’ va g ue allegations of error set forth in the addendum to their Notice of Ap pe a l pr ov id e d in su ff

ic ie nt g ro un ds to o ve rt

ur n th e I J’s d e c isi on , i. e ., pe tit ion e rs fa ile d to

a d e qu a t e l y

e x p l a i nw h y t h e IJ ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o nw a s c l e ar l y

e r r o n e o u s o r

h o w t h e IJ

a lle g e dly mis c ha ra c te ri zed the e vid e nc e . T he B I A a lso no te d th a t pet iti on e rs a sse rt e d in a c c ur a te ly t h a tt h e IJ i mp u t e d

t h e a b s e n c e o f f e ar f r o m D o b r o s l a v ’ s f

a m i l y t o h i m w h e n , i na c t u a l i t y, t h e IJ

“ he ld t hat th e re a so na

ble ne ss o f [D ob ro slav ’s ] fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on wa s r e du c e d w he n h is f

a mil y members r emained in Montene g ro unhar med for se vera l y ear s after his depar ture fr om the country . . . .” Thus, the B I A dismissed petitioners’ appe al. Petitioners timely

filed a se parate petition for re view of the BIA’s Nove mber 2008 de cision, and we consolidated the pe titions for pur poses of this appea l. II. We l a c k ju

ri sd ic tio n o ve r t

he pe tit ion

fo r re vie w in Ca se No

. 08 -3 57 4. As we e xpla ine d in Mu Ju Li v. Mukasey , 515 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2008), our jurisdiction in immi g ration ca ses is limi ted to “final orde r[s] of re moval,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1), a nd wh e n the B I A g ra

nts a mot ion to re c on sid e r and – a ft e r c on sid e ri ngthe iss ue s a fr e sh – rende rs a new decision addre ssing the arguments raised, the orig inal order has bee n vacated and a

new or der e ntere d i n i t s place . I t follows logica lly that in such aNos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 8 - circ umstance, the BIA’s prior decision cannot be deemed a f inal order of re moval for purposes of this cour

t’s jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would be to place this court in the position of reviewing a decision that the BIA has deeme d err ant in some reg ard and non-binding on the par ties or itself.

* * * I n so holding, we provide those who pr actice befor e the B I A with a cle ar r ule: Where a pe tit ion fo r re vie w is fi le d wi th thi s c ourt and a mot ion to r e c on sid e r i s f

ile d w ith the BIA, if the BIA g rants the motion to rec onsider and rende rs a new d ec i sion addre ssing the issues prese nted in the ca se, then the ne w dec ision effe ctively vacates the prior decision and a se parate petition for re view of the new de cision must be filed with this court. Mu J u Li , 515 F.3d at 578-80 (citation and f ootnote omitted). S

e e a ls o Na e em v . Holder , 3 21 F. Ap p ’x 5 1 6 , 5 2 0 (7 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( u np u b l i s h ed ) ( fa v o rab l y

ci t i n g Mu J

u Li and holding that the B I A’s decision upon re consideration “eff ectively supplanted the pre vious order a nd beca me the final orde r of re mov a l” wh e re “ it s ub sta nti a lly dif fe re d f ro m that [or ig ina l] or de r be c a us e it a dd e d a

n a na ly sis of the pe titioners’ pattern or prac tice cla im[ .]”). This “clea r rule” applies to the prese nt c ase. The B I A ef fec tively vacated its April 2008 order when it g rante d petitioners’ motion to reconside r, addr essed the omission in the April order , and

rea ffirme d its dism issal of the appe al base d on petitioners’ fa ilure to provide a dequate explanations in support of their nebulous a lleg ations of err or on the par t of the I J . Be cause the April 2008 orde r no lo n ger c onstitut es a “ final orde r[] ” within the meaningof 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 1), we lack jurisdiction to review it.Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 9 - T h e r e f o r e , the sole ag ency

decision prope rly

befor e us is the B I A’s Nove mber 2008 orde r that is the subject of the separate t imely petition filed in Case No. 08-4599. Se e Mu J u Li , 515 F.3d at 580. III

. Petitioners alleg e that the B I A violated their due proce ss r ights when it de nied their motion to serve the correc ted version of the rec ord on the pa rties or re set the brief

ing sc hedule a

nd instead dis mis se d th e ir

a pp e a l w ith ou t g ivi ngthe m th e be ne fi t of the c or re c te d re c or d to pre pa

re the ir a pp e a l. Petitioners argue that the B I A failed to follow the mandate of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5(a ), which pr ovides that, u po n an a pp e a l to the B I A, the I J “ sh a ll re vie w the tr ans c ri pt an d ap pr ov e the de c isi on wi thi n 14 day s of rec eipt” of the BIA’s reque st that the rec ord be f orwa rded. The y

also complain that the BIA did not rule on their motion to furnish the appr oved tra nscript for ove r a y ear . When the BIA re views the I J ’s dec ision de nov o an d i s s ues its own separ ate opinion, we revie w the B I A’s dec i s i o n as t he fina l ag ency deter mination. Morgan v. Keisler , 507 F.3d 1053, 1057 (6th Cir. 2007). We likewise re view de novo c laims of due proc ess vi o l at i o n s in removal proce eding s. Ga r

z a -More no v. Gonzales , 4 89 F .3 d 2 39 , 2 41 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . “ An a lie n mu st establish both error

and substantial pre

ju d ice to pre vail on a due pr ocess c halleng e to depor tation proce eding s.” Id . (citation and internal quotation ma rks omitted). “[A] def

ect ‘must ha

ve been suc h

as m i gh t have led to a

denial of justice’ to trigg er due proce ss conce rns.” Id . at 241 (quoting Hu ic oc he a- Go me

z v . I NS , 2 37 F .3 d 6 96 , 6 99 (6 th C ir . 200 1) ). “ A sho wi ngof pr e jud ic e is e sse nti a lly a demonstration that the alleg ed violation aff ecte d the out co m e of the proc eeding s; we will notNos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 10 - s im p ly p r e s u me p r e

ju dice.” Gi s hta v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 972, 979 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Certainly , we are c og nizant of “the dang ers in an or al opinion that is forwar ded for revie w without an ex amination for error s in transcr iption” and have de emed it “e x tremely poor pra ctice not to provide the pa

rties with the cor

rec ted ver sion of the I J ’s d ecision whe n it was corr ecte d.” Djokovic v. Muk

asey , 27 3 F

. Ap p’ x 5 05 , 5 07 , 5 09 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) (u np ub lis he d) . O n p ri or

oc c a sio ns , we ha ve “note [d] with conce rn that the g overnme nt [ has] failed to meet its obligation to prepare a

rea sonably

acc urate and complete rec ord of the removal hearing upon [an alien’s] appea l from the I J ’s orde r.” Sterkaj v. G onzales , 439 F.3d 273, 279 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citi ng 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a (b )( 4) (C ); 8 C.F .R. § 10 03 .5 ; and 8 C. F .R. § 1 24 0. 9) ; see also Garza-M oreno , 489 F.3d at 241 (e c ho ingthi s c on c e rn ). “ Du e pr oc e ss d e mand s a re a so na bly a c c ur a te a nd com pl e te tr ans c ri pt t o al l o w f o r m ea n i n gfu l ap p el l at e re v i ew an d t o al l o w t h e a l i en t o m o u n ta c h al l en ge t o t h e p ro ce ed i n gs conducte d befor e the I J .” Sterkaj , 439 F.3d at 279. Con se qu e ntl y , w e e nd or se ne ith e r t he B I A’ s f

a ilure , o nc e a g a in i n th e ins tant c a se , to promptly serve the p arties with a corre cted c opy of the tra

nscript nor its appar ent pra ctice of rende ring its own editorial deter mination that the I J ’s correc tions wer e “minor” and ther efor e did not

war rant ser ving the parties with a c orre cted c opy of the re cord. H o w e v e r , u n d e r

th e p r e s e n t c ir c u ms ta

n c e s , th e a ll e g e d

d e p r iv a ti o no f

me aningf

ul

a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w i s o f p e tit ion e rs ’ o wn mak ing . T he B I A s e rv e d p e tit ion e rs wi th r e a so na bly

a c c ur a te and

c omp le te , a lbe it unc or

re c te d, c op ie s o f t

he re c or d and the I J’s de c isi on wh e n it ini tia llyNos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 11 - issued the brief

ing sc hedule, ther eby

providing petitioners with t h e n ece ssary materia ls to perfe ct their administrative a

ppeal. Althoug h petitioners indicated the ir intent to file a brie f in their Notice of Appea l, the y failed to do so in a timely manner , despite being g rante d one deadline e x tension. I t was only

afte r t he ex tended deadline passed that petitioners s ubmitted their motion for a c orre cted transcr ipt or alterna t i v ely to reset the br iefing schedule . By proce eding in this unt imely manner , pe tit ion e rs un dis pute dly

fa ile d to c omp ly wi th the B I A’ s we ll- e sta bli sh e d pr a c tic e s and

pr oc e dure s. As on e c ourth a s e xp l a i n e d , t h e B I A ’ s b r i e f i n g s c h e d u l e an d p r a c t i c e s s e r

v e a l e g i t i ma te purpose: Un de r t he fe de ra l re g ulatio ns , an a lie n in cus tod y g e ne ra lly ha s 21 d ay s in wh ic h to file a br ief to the B I A, but “upon wr itten motion, [ the B I A] may extend the period for filing a brief or a re ply brief f or up to 90 day s for g oo d ca u s e s h o wn . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c) (1). F urthermor e, “[i]n i ts discretion, the [BI A] may consider a

brief that has been filed out of time.” Id

. “In the i ntere sts of fairness and the efficient use of administrative re source s , ” ex t ensi on reque sts are disfa vored. See BIA Prac tice Manua l, § 4

. 7 ( c ) ( i)

. A c c o r d in g ly , it is th e B I A ’ s p o li c y

to g r an t a

f ir s t b r ie fing extension, but to only grant second re quests “in ra re c ircumstance s.” Id . at § 4. 7( c )( i) (A ). L ike wi se , th e B I A o nly wi ll c on sid e r a llo wi ng a la te -f ile d b ri e f i f i t is a c c omp anie d b y

a mot ion that “ se t[s] f

or th i n d e ta il the re a so ns fo r t he un tim e lin e ss” and is supported by “af

fidavits, decla

rations, or other evidenc e.” See I d. at § 4.7(d). Even then, it “r are ly ” conside rs the motion. Id. * * * The B I A’s policy

of deny ing se cond re quests “in the intere sts of fairne ss and the effi ci en t u s e of administrative re source s” is not arbitrar y and ca pricious . . . . L ikewise, the BI A[’s] . . . policy of re quiring petitioners to explain the reasons for the untimeliness in a motion s upported by evidenc e is not arbitra

ry and ca pricious. Al-Shishani v. U.S. Att’y G en ., No. 08-15750, 2009 WL1845578, at *3 (11th C i r. J une 29, 2009) (unpublished per

curiam).Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 12 - Moreove r, S ection 4.2(f) of the B I A Prac tice Manua l sets forth a spe cific pr ocedur e for litigants that desire to challeng e defe cts or corr ections in the immigration court rec ord. I t provides in p e rt ine nt p art : (iii) Defect s in the t ra n s cr i p t. – Obvious defe cts in the transcript . . . should be brought t o t h e immediate attention of the Clerk’s Office

. Such reque sts should be filed sepa rate ly under a cove r p age titled “REQUEST FOR CORRECTI ON OF TRANSCRI PT.” . . . The B oard, in i t s d i s cretion, may reme dy the def ect whe re appropr iate and f

easible. Defec ts do not excusethe parties from existing briefing deadlines

. Those dea dlines rema in in e f f e c t u n ti l t h e p arti e s ar e n o ti f

ie d o th e r w is e . Se e Ch a

p te r 4

. 7(c) (Extensions). Wh e r e t h e B o ar d

d o e s n o to r

c an n o tr e m e dy

t h e p u r p o rt e d d e f e c ti nt h e t r an sc ri pt, and the pa

rty believes that defe ct to be sig nificant to the pa rty ’s ar g um ent or the adjudication of the appea l, thepa rty sh ou ld i de nti

fy thede fe c t an d a rgue its signifi cancewith specificity in the appeal brief. The B oard r ecommends that the brief be supported by

a sworn, de tailed statement. The Boa rd will consider a

ny alleg ations of transc ript err or in the cour se of a djudicating the appe al. (iv) Cor rec ted oral dec ision s. – When an I mmigration J ud ge i s s u es an ora l decision, the Immigration J udg e re views the tra nscription of the ora l d ec i s ion, and may make minor, c lerica l corre ctions to the decision. These corre cted de cisions are returne d to the Boa

rd and se rved on the parties. I f a pa rty believes the corr ections ar e sig nif ic ant t o th e pa

rt y ’s argume nt o r t

he a dju dic a tio n o f t

he a pp e a l, the pa

rt y sh ou ld identify the cor rec tion and i t s s i gnificanc e with spec ificity in the appea l brief. Correc tions do not

excus e t h e parties f

rom exist ing br iefing deadlines. If the correc ted dec ision is s erve d after the briefing schedule has e xpired, the parties sh ou ld f ile a “ Motion to Acce

pt Supplemental Brief

. ” S ee C h ap t er

4

. 6 (g) (Supplemental B riefs)

. BIA Prac tice Manua l § 4.2(f)( iii)-(iv) (e mphasis added) . Adher ence to these proc edure s insures the

me anin g fu l a

pp e llate re vie w that pe tit ion e rs no w c la im i s la c kin g : When an alien f

ollows these proc edure s, the BIA is able to eva luate whe ther the “g aps [in the transcript] re late to matters mate rial to [the] case and [whether] theyNos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

We note that petitioners do not challeng e the pr opriety of t he BI A’s decision reg ardingthe 6 untimeliness of their pleading s in this court and there fore have w aived this issue. See U nited States v. Lopez-M

edina , 461 F.3d 724, 743 n.4 (6th Cir. 2006) (issues not raised in a n appellate brief, or issues advanc ed in a pe rfunc tory fashion, ar e wa ived.).

- 13 - materia lly

aff ect [the alien’s] ability

to obtain meaning ful revie w.” More over, if the BIA conc ludes that a de fec tive transcr ipt did not c ause prejudice , these proc edure s cre ate a rec ord t hat facilitates the meaning ful and e ffe ctive judicial revie w to which a petitioner is entitled. W itjaksono v. Holder , 573 F.3d 968, 976 ( 10th Cir. 2009) (ci t at i o n an d internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioners disre g arde d these proce dures. Consequently , even a ssuming ar g uendo that they had a le g itimate excuse for their f ailure to f ile an appellate brief befor e the extended deadline, the y did not inform the BIA of these rea sons or reque st a second br iefing extension i n a timely manner . 6 The dire ct conse quence was petitioners’ inability , g iven the bar ebones a lleg ations of er ror c ontained in the addendum to the Notice of Appe al, to satisfy their burde n of proof

re gar d i n g the I J ’s substantive decision deny ing r elief. Finally , as petitioners’ counsel, a seasone d immigration practitioner, should be w ell awa re, we ha ve held that minor c lerica l chang es or transcription err ors i n an uncor rec ted dec ision are not t an t a m o u n tt o t h e d e p r i v a t i o no f d u e p r o c e s s a

b s e n ta s h o w i n g o f

p r e j u d i c e . InGarza-More no , counsel in the c urre nt case argued t hat the B I A’s fa ilure to provide his clients with a sig ned and edited copy

of the I J ’s o rd er an d an acc urate transcr ipt violated their due proc ess rig hts. GarzaMoreno , 4 89 F .3 d at 24 1. We r e je c te d th is a

rgume nt, statin g thatNos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 14 - [w] hile sending Petitioners an unsig ned orde r may have be en a tec hnical def ect, we fail to see how

it “denied them justice.”

* * * Petitioners claim that the ag ency ’s fa ilure to provide them with an acc urate transcr ipt violated the F ifth Amendment. They point to si x ty -seve n “indiscer nible” notations in the transcr ipt of the hea ring befor e the I J

. . . . Whil e due pr ocess de mands a reasonably acc urate and complete transcr ipt to allow f o r me an in g f

u l a p p e ll a te r e v ie w , a

me r e f a il u r e o f tr an s c r ip ti o n , b y

it s e lf , d o e s n ot ri se to a due pr oc e ss vio la tio n. Th e pe tit ion e r ha s the burd e n to pr ov e pr e jud ic e in order to establish a due pr ocess violation in an immigr ation h ea ri n g. A petit ioner furnished w ith an inacc urate or incomplete tra nscript must show that a complete a nd acc urate transcr ipt would have cha ng ed the outcome of t he ca se. Petitioners do not point us to a sing le ar g ument that the “indisce rnible” notations precluded the m from advanc ing be fore the B I A or this court, nor do w e find any from our r eview of

the transcr ipt. Bec ause the y

cannot show prejudice, they cannot establish a violation of the Fif th Amendment’s due pr ocess guara ntee. Id ., 489 F.3d at 241-42 (citations, interna l quotation marks, and bra ckets omitted). Se e als o W itjaksono , 57 3 F .3 d at 97 5 ( ho ldi ngthat th e B I A’ s f a ilure to p ro vid e an accur ate and c omp le te transcr ipt of the remova l hear ing did not depr ive the alien of due pro ce s s wh ere the information omi tte d fr om the tr ans c ri pt w a s “ imm a te ri a l” ); Soumare v . Holder , No. 07-4417, 2009 WL2568091, at *7 (6th Cir. Aug . 21, 2009) (unpublished) ( holding that “ beca use [the petitioner] has not identified how the ‘indisce rnibles’ in the he aringtr an s cript prejudiced his ability to perfe ct an a

ppeal, we conclude that [t he petitioner] has not d em o n s t rate d a due- proce ss violation.”) (footnote omitted); Dj ok ov ic , 273 F. App’x at 510 (holding that the petitioner’s due proce ss rig hts were not violated by

corr ections to the I J ’s dec ision).Nos. 08-3574 and 08-4599

Bulatovic v. H

older

- 15 - As the B I A ac cura

tely noted in its November 2008 order , the I J made no corr ections to the hear ing tr anscr ipt and only minor edits to the oral decision, including the cor rec tion of one citation. Thus , the argume nt ma de by pe tit ion e rs to t

his c ourt that th e se min or

e dit s c omp ro mis e d th e ir

a bil ity to prepa re t h ei r appeal and c aused pr ejudice is wholly spurious. Petiti oners ne ver br oug ht to the immediate attention of the B I A any obvious or signific ant defe cts in the complete r ecor d that they initially rec eived, did not re quest any corr ections, and di d n o t timely move to file a Supplementa l Br ief be fore the brief

ing de adline expired. The B IA there fore proper ly dismiss ed their a

ppeal. I V. For the re asons set for

th a bove, we dismiss the petition for re view in Case. No. 08- 3574 for lack of jurisdiction and deny

the petition for re view in Case No. 08- 4599.