NOT RECOMMENDED F OR P UBLICATION F ile Nam e: 13a0099n.06 No. 12-3594 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

SI MON HARUTYUN YAN and ARMI NE HARUTYUN YAN, Petitioners,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral of the United States, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF THE DECI SI ON OF THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

OPI NI ON

Be fore : NORRI S, MOORE, and DONA L D, Circuit J udg es. BERNICE BOUIE D ON A LD , C ir c ui t J ud g e . Simon and Armine Har uty uny an are asy lum applicants from Armenia , positing that they seek ref ug e from political perse cution latent within the country

. I n their petition for revie w, they claim that the immigra t i o n j u d ge’s adver se cre dibilit y finding s wer e not supported by substantial evidenc e and that they wer e deprive d of due proce ss and an impartial a

rbiter. We disag ree , and DENY the petition acc ording ly

. I

. Simon and Armine Har

uty uny an are a marrie d couple from Armenia

. Be fore coming to the 1 United States, Simon ran a family caf é, handling the day -to-day af fa i rs of the business. I n 2005, S i m o n wa s asked by a friend if he could distribute promotional materia ls for the National Unity

Both the lead and deriva tive applicants are parties befor e this Court. Acc ording ly , for ease 1 of re fer ence , the par

ties are ref

err ed to by

their g iven names throug hout this opi nion.No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder Party , an Armenia

n opposition g roup, to party memb er s . S i m o n agre ed. He later acquie sced to placing the materia ls in his caf é for patron consumption. Whil e the caf é’s walls and windows wer e adorne d with party para

pherna lia, Simon himself was not a p ar t y member. He was, howeve r, sy mpathetic to the par

ty ’s belief

s. On Marc h 4, 2006, sever al policeme n enter ed the caf é while patrons wer e eng ag ed in political discussion. Simon was asked to show documents perta ining to the opera t i o n o f h is business. He complied, but was never theless arr ested. Three others, including Simon’s friend, wer e also arr ested. Simon was detained for six day s at police headqua rters. During their interrog ation, the police d e ma n d e d th a t Simon sign a written confe ssion admitting to planning a coup ag ainst the g over n me n t. When he ref

used, Simon was escor

ted to a small room which he descr ibed as an “isolation room.” L eft undisturbed overnig ht, the police to o k Simon to a baseme nt room the next morning ; upon

ar ri v al , two men in civilian attire beg an verba lly assaulting him. The men sat Simon down on a chair , kicked a

chair leg and detac hed it, be ating a fa llen Simon wit h the leg while y elling a t him. Simon lost consciousness but reg ained i t , finding himself returne d to the isolation room. After

sever al hours, Simon was returne d to the baseme nt wher e the two men repe ated the phy sical abuse. Whil e doing so, they threa tened to kill Simon if he failed to confe ss in writing that he was planning

a coup. The threa ts and beating s continued until Marc h 10, 2006, when Simon’s fathe r paid $6,000 to obtain his son’s relea se. Be fore Simon depar

ted the station, the police alleg edly war ned him that they would “find a way and a rea son” and that they would kill him. Upon returning home, a phy sician neig hbor trea ted - 2 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder Simon’s wounds and g ave him pain medic ation. When his condition deter iorated, Si mon went to a hospi tal; the hos pital found him to be in “g rave condition” and observe d that Simon had broken teeth, a b ro k en j aw , kidney damag e, cuts over his ey ebrow , blood in his urine, and pain all throug hout his body

. Two d ay s later, afte r a rec overy “without complications,” Simon was discharg ed in “sa tisfactory condition.” Despite advice from the head of the National Unity Party that littl e could be done about the situation, Simon signe d a complaint letter drafted by his friend to send t o the M inistry of J ustice. The ministry

issued no response

. On April 11, 2006, the police visited the family caf é. Simon’s fathe r explained to them that Simon was not pr esent but wa s near by and would be r eturning to the caf é shortly

. The fathe r then
contac ted his son, advising him to leave the vicinity . Simon retreate d to the hom e of his in-laws. When the pol ice were unable to appre hend S imon at t he café or hi s home, t hey arr ested his fathe r and detained him for three day s. The Har uty uny ans repor

t that, since their depar

ture from Armenia , their family has been subject to continued hara ssment by p o l ice officia ls demanding to know Simon’s location. I n May 2006, the Ha

ruty uny ans enter ed the United States on visitor visas. Having overstay ed their visas, the Ha

ruty uny ans, with Simon as the lead applicant, filed an application for asy lum on Marc h 19, 2007. He soug ht a sy lum pr imarily on political g rounds, par ticularly with respec t to his sy mpathies and ties to the Na tional Unity Party . I n support of their a pplication, the Har

uty uny ans included a letter fr om Sim on’s fa ther a ttesting to Simon’s past plig ht a nd potential peril. Simon’s fathe r has since died. - 3 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder An asy lum office r conducte d an interview to consider their application. The Depa rtment of Homeland Security then ref err ed the application to an immigra tion judge (I J ) for consideration and issued a Notice to Appear for r emoval proc eeding s. After conducting two day s of hear ings, the I J issued a decision deny ing Simon’s application for asy lum, withholding of remova l, a nd protec tion unde r the Convention A g ainst Torture

. The I J made an adver se cre dibilit y deter mination as to Simon, positing that inconsistenci es i n t h e Har uty uny ans’ respe ctive testimonies, combined with materia l omissions , ma d e Si mo n a n in c r e d ible witness. To wit , the I J cited the following in support of his deter mination: (1) an omission from Simon’s I -589 decla

ratio n reg arding the death threa ts he encounte red while detained; (2) the implausibil ity

of sending a complaint letter in spite of the thre at of re taliation; (3) Simon’s failure
to reta in a copy of the letter; (4) an inconsistency as to the date on wh i ch Simon’s fathe r beca me

awa re of his son’s arre st; and (5) a n omission reg arding the police’ s questioning of Armine. The Boa rd of I mmigra tion Appea ls (B I A) reve rsed and rema nded the I J ’s d ec i sion in a single -judg e order , order ing the I J to consider the corr ob o ra t i v e evidence the Har uty uny ans submitt ed in support of their asy lum claim. On rema nd, the I J further explained that the letter from Simon’s fathe r had limit ed probative and persua sive value, as it was draf ted afte r the Har

uty uny ans

arr ived in the United States and wer e prepa ring their application for asy lum. The I J also addre ssed

a medical repor

t conce rning the extent of Simon’s injuries, his subsequent trea tment, and his rele ase; the I J observe d that a two-day rec overy and discharg e afte r b ei n g in “g rave condition” was likely implausible. The I J noted the absenc e of any mention of the medical rec ord in Simon’s application, finding the omission to be supportive of an adver se cre dibilit y deter mination. The BI A aff

irmed the - 4 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder I J ’s decision in a single -judg e order , finding no clea r err or as to the I J ’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination and finding “no indication in the rec ord” that the I J was not a neutra l decisionmake r. The Ha ruty uny ans timely

filed a pe tition for review

.

I I

. “This court has jurisdiction to revie w the final decision of the BI A ‘af firming the I J ’s denial of asy lum.’” Hache m v. Holder , 656 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Singh v. Ashcroft , 398 F.3d 396, 400 (6th Cir. 2005)). We revie w de novo any leg al deter minations and revie w the BI A’s decision to deter

mine whether any fac tual finding s are supported by substantial evidenc e. Mostafa

v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 622, 624 (6th Cir. 2005). Under this defe rential substantial-evidenc e standard, “we will not reve rse a fac tual d et er m i n at ion unless we find ‘that t he evidence not only supports a contra ry conclusion, but compe ls it.’” Bonilla-Morales v. Holder , 607 F.3d 1132, 1136 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Marku v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004)). “Where the Boa rd adopts the I J ’s decision and supplements that decision with its own comments, as in this case , we revie w both the BI A’s and the I J ’s opinions.” Hache m , 656 F.3d at 434 (citing Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 (6th Cir. 2005) (pe r cur iam)). I n their petition for revie w, the Har uty uny ans challeng e the I J ’s adver se cre dibilit y finding s. The REAL I D Act of 2005 g overns our revie w of their claims. The Act require s that credibilit y 2

The Har uty uny ans ask us to conduct our revie w under the pre- REAL I D Act standard as 2 applied in Koulibal

y v. Mukase

y , 541 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2008), despite the fac t that they filed their application afte r the Act took eff ect. Whil e they “re spectfully submit that the rationale of Koulibal y should be ex tended to this case ,” they offe r no valid basis for doing so. Acc ording ly , we conduct the “stricte r review provided by the R EAL I D Act.” See E l-Moussa v. Holde r , 569 F.3d 250, 256 (6th Cir. 2009). - 5 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder deter minations b e m ad e u n d er the “totality of the circ umstances,” permitting an I J to take into

acc ount “all re levant fa ctors,” inc luding: the demea

nor, candor , or responsivene ss of the applicant or witness, the inhere nt plausibilit y of the applicant’ s or witness’s acc ount, the consistency betwee n the applicant’ s or witness’s written and oral statements (whe never made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circ umstances under which the statements wer e made) , the internal consistency of eac h such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidenc e of rec ord (including the repor ts of the Depa

rtment of State on country conditions), and any inacc urac ies or falsehoods in such statements, without reg ard to whether an inconsistency , ina c c urac y , or falsehood g oes to the hear t of the a pplicant’s cla im, or any

other re levant fa ctor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (iii) (2006). “ We review separ ately eac h of t he . . . inconsistencie s upon which the I J and BI

A based the adver se cre dibilit y deter mination” to see if the ag ency ’s finding s are supported by substantial e vidence

. Abdurakhmanov v. Holder , 666 F.3d 978, 982 (6th Cir. 2012)

. Four primary inconsistencies and implausibil ities in the rec ord led to the BI A’s aff irmance of the I J ’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination. The most serious of these conc er n s the nature and

sever ity of Simon’s injuries. Two other re lated inconsistencie s and im plausibilit ies touched upon (1) the threa ts Simon encounte red while incar cer ated; and (2) Simon’s decision to write a complaint letter afte r his detention. The other ancillary co n cern supporting an adver se cre dibilit y 3 deter mination was one re g arding Armine’s que stioning by police about he r husband’ s location. The I J doubted the consistency o f S i mon’s testimony and the corr oborative evidenc e

conce rning the extent of his injuries. Whil e a medical repor t detailed the extent of Simon’s injuries

The Har uty uny ans do not appea

r to challeng e this particula r ob s ervation under the 3 substantial evidenc e standard. I nstead, conce rns about the complaint letter appea r to be incorporated into their bias claim. Henc e, this implausibil ity will be discussed in Part I I I below. - 6 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder and descr ibed his condition as “g rave ,” the I J exp re s sed skepticism about Simon’s “re marka ble

rec overy [which] occur

red in 2 day s, following [S imon’s] alleg ed admittance for trea tment of sever e injuries arising out of ‘the massacr e.’” Fur ther compounding the I J ’s doubts reg arding the medical

corr oborative evidenc e was the fac t that Simon “made no mention of a period of hospitaliz ation, 2 day s or otherwise, for trea tment following his alleg ed period in custody ” in hi s ap p l i cation for asy lum. The I J ’s doubts and the resulting adver se cre dibilit y deter mination are supported by substantial evide n ce . S i mon failed to mention any period of hospitaliz ation in his application for asy lum; additionally , the onl y mention of injury in his application is the “ver y sharp pa ins in [hi s] b ac k an d in [hi s] body ” that he suffe red afte r his period of detention. During Simon’s as y l u m hear ing, his ability to rec ollect t he ex tent of i nju ri es d ra m atically improved: his descr iption went fr o m the “ver

y sharp pains” throug hout his body he claimed during the application proce ss t o a “ter rible pain in

. . . [hi s] kidney s,” sever al loose teeth, a bleeding jaw, “ter rible heada ches,” pain in his urinary trac t, and an inability to stand o r wa l k

. As the I J observe d, the full extent of these injuries, Simon’s hospitaliz ation, and his trea tment wer e conspicuously absent from the in i t ial application. Such omission and disparity betwee n the I -589 disclosures and an applicant’ s testimony can support an I J ’s adverse cred i b i lity deter mination. See Khozhaynova v. Holder , 641 F.3d 187, 1 9 4 ( 6 th Cir. 2011) (conc luding that inconsistencies betwee n a petitioner’s application a n d te s ti mo ny can suppor

t an adve rse c redibility

deter mination). And it does so here

. Simi larly absent from Simon’s I -589 decla ration is any mention of the death threa ts that he

rec eived while detained, up until the point of his r elea se. I n his testimony , Simon claimed that the - 7 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder police wer e “thre atening to kill [hi m] .” He explained tha t the police threa tened him in an eff ort to

coer ce him to sign a writ ing that confe ssed to planning a coup in Armenia

. Upon his rele ase, the police told Simon that “they would kill [ him] , they

would find a wa

y and a rea son and they would kill [hi m] .” None of these threa ts were i n cl u d ed in Simon’s I -589 application or supporting documentation. When asked about the conspicuous absence o f t he multit ude of threa ts Simon
encounte red, he apolog ized and stated: “I didn’t write as many details, I suppose, as y ou’d like.” Relatedl y , a letter from Simon’s fathe r, now dece ased, also “ce rtified” that “Simon’s coming to Armenia is very dang erous both for

Simon and his family .” There is no expectation that an application will contain ever y detail and ever

y minute aspec t of an applicant’ s reque st for asy lum. See Kaba v. Mukase y , 546 F.3d 741, 749 (6th Cir. 2008). “On the other hand, an a

pplication should contain at least some indication of the ty pe of asser

tions that will be made in suppor

t of a claim.” Id. at 749-50. L ike the omission about the extent of Simon’s injuries, no such i ndication was provided for the death threa ts by the Armenian police. The letter fr om Simon’s fathe r, while deeme d cre dible, had littl e probative value; it summarily discusses Simon’s detention, provides no specific evidenc e as to what happene d during his incar cer ation, and

cr y p t ically war

ns of dang er in Armenia

. Such a document bare ly supports, let alone compels, a conclusion contra

ry to the one deve loped by

the I J

. I n concludin g our substantial evidenc e revie w, we addre ss the inconsistency arising from Armine’s visit to her fathe r-in-la w and her questioning by

police as to Simon’s where abouts. The Har uty uny ans claim that the I J had n o basis for finding an inconsistency reg arding when Si mon’s fathe r lear

ned about his son’s detention. This was not, howeve r, the inconsistency upon which the - 8 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder BI A relied; hence , we decline to revie w this asser tion. See Shkabari v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 324, 328 (6th Cir. 2005) (“L ong standing principles conce rn in g ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f a d ministrative action require that we assess the administrative ag ency ’s decision ‘solely by the g rounds invoked by the ag ency .’” (quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp. , 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)) ; cf. Thapa v. Holder , 475 F. App’x 593, 594-95 (6th Cir. 2012) (dec lining to ad d re s s an issue that was unaddre ssed by the BI A when the BI A’s denial of asy lu m could be upheld “on other g rounds that are supported by the rec ord”)

. I nstead, we addre ss the BI A’s reliance on Simon’s omission of Armine’s police questioni ng from his I -58 9 d ec l ar ation. The Har uty uny ans contend that this omission was de minimis

. To the
contra ry , the questioning of family members can be materia l to a perse cution claim, and its omission here validly constituted support for an adver se cre dibilit y deter mination. See Ileana v. INS, 106 F. Ap p ’x 3 49, 350, 352 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing a Romanian officia l’s questioning of an applicant’ s mother as part of a fac tual basis for finding perse cution). I n any event, the REAL I D Act makes the materia l i t y o f an inconsistency immaterial; thus, even if the om ission was de minimis , it may still support the I J ’s adve rse c redibility finding

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (iii). Wit hout the requisite showing of cre dibilit y , the Har uty uny ans “ca

nnot e stablish that [t hey

are ] entitled to asy l u m o r wi thholding of remova l.” See Pak v. Holder , No. 12-3267, 2012 WL 6700330, at *2 (6th Cir. D ec. 27, 2012) (citing Zhao v. Holder , 569 F.3d 238, 249 (6th Cir. 2009) ; Singh v. Ashcroft , 3 9 8 F. 3 d 3 9 6 , 404 (6th Cir. 2005)). Henc e, we cannot g rant their petition for revie w on this basis.

- 9 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder I I I

. We now turn to the Har

uty uny ans’ bias claim. They alleg e that “[t] he analy sis of the BI A/I J upon rema

nd and in the initial opinion reve al bias ag ainst the Petitioners,” quoting one question-andanswe r seg ment from the cross-e x amination of Simon conc erning his de cision to sig n a complaint letter to the Ministry of J ustice. There is nothing in the rec ord to sug g est that the I J did not “func tion

as a neutra l, impartial arbiter and [failed to] ref rain fr o m t ak i ng on the role of advocate for either party .” See Elias v. Gonzales , 490 F.3d 444, 451 (6th Cir. 2007). Nor do the Har uty uny ans attempt to asser t this; their arg uments “alleg ing bias and prejudice appear to be, in fac t, challeng es t o [t he I J ’s] deter mination.” See Abdallahi v. Holder , 690 F.3d 467, 474 (6th Cir. 2012) (eva luating a bias claim in an immigra tion case wher e the petitioner supported his due proce ss arg ument by “pointing out fac tual err ors” in the I J ’s written de cision). To the e x tent that the Har uty uny ans’ “ bias” c laim i s o n e ch alleng ing the I J ’s finding s, we see no rea soned arg ument based on the rec ord or lega l authorit y t hat would support such a claim; there fore , with this issue “adve rted to in a perf unctory

manner [and] unacc ompanied by some eff ort at develope d arg umentation,” we deem it waived. See Dugboe v. Holder , 644 F.3d 462, 470 (6th Cir. 2011) (interna l quotation marks omitted). To the
extent that the claim is one o f b i as , we d i s cer n neither err or nor prejudice that would allow the Har uty uny ans to preva il on their bias-base d due proce ss challeng e. See Abdallahi , 690 F.3d at 474. I V. The Har uty uny ans also asser

t that the BI A denied them due proce ss by failing to have a three

judge panel adjudicate their appea l once the I J rende red his second decision. They arg ue that the BI A’s fa ilure to assig n either a three -judg e panel or the sing le member who initially

revie wed a

nd - 10 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder

rema nded the I J ’s first decision constitutes a depriva tion of due proce ss. I n support of their claim, the Har uty uny ans rely upon the Four th Circuit’s decision in Quinteros-Me ndoza v. Holder , 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009), in addition to the ag ency ’s own reg ulations a s promulgated in Title 8, section 1003.1(e) of the Code of

Fe dera l Reg ulations.

“I t is an elementa l principle of administrative law that ag encie s are bound to follow their own reg ulations.” Billeke- Tolosa v. Ashcroft , 385 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 2004) (qu o t i n g W i l son v. C omm’r of Soc. Security , 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004)) (modification in orig inal remove d ). Under its enabling rules, the Boa rd has t h e d i s cr et ion to convene a three -member panel if a case prese nts one of the f

ollowing c ircumstance s: (i) The need to settle inconsistencies among the ruling s of differen t immigra tion judge s; (ii) The need to establish a prec edent construing the meaning of laws, reg ulations, or proce dures; (iii) The need to revie w a decision by an immigra tion judge or the Service that is not in conformity

with the law or w ith applicable pr ece dents; (iv) The need to r esolve a case or controve rsy

of major na tional import; (v) The need to revie w a clea rly err oneous fac tual deter mination by an immigra tion judge ; or (vi) The need to reve rse the decision of an im m i gration j udg e or the S ervic e, other than a r ever sal under § 1003.1( e)( 5).

8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (6) (2012). Acc ording ly , we have rec og nized that “eve n if one of the six criter ia for three-me mber panel revie w were presented in a particul ar ca s e, the Board need not empane l a

- 11 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder multi-member decision-making body but may do so in its discretion.” Koussan v. Holder , 556 F.3d 403, 415 (6th Cir. 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Judulang v. Holder , 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011). Whil e the Ha

ruty uny ans i nvoke the Boar d’s ena bling r ules to support their ar g ument, they fail to expressly identify which pro v i s i on of the empane ling rules their case would fall under. L ac k i n g d eveloped arg umentation on the issue, we g ener ally would consider such an arg ument a forf eited one. See Johns v. Holder , 678 F.3d 404, 409 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 1 2 ). To the extent that the Har uty uny ans’ substantial evidenc e claims constitute a “nee d to revie w cl ea rly err oneous fac tual deter mination,” howeve r, our revie w above sug g ests that there was no such need here

. I n any event,

even i f o n e of the six enumer ated circ umstances of section 1003.1(e) (6) arose , the Boa rd enjoy s broad discretion to impanel one judge instead of three , and it did not exceed that discretion here

. See Koussan , 556 F.3d at 415; Tapia-Martinez v. Gonzales , 482 F.3d 417, 425 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (“Eve n [wit h a need to revie w a clea rly err oneous fac tual deter mination] , the reg ulation does not g uara ntee a thre e-me mber B I A pane l as a matter of rig ht.”). The Har uty uny ans’ relianc e on the Four th Circuit’s d ec i s i o n in Quinteros-Me ndoza is misplaced. Quinteros-Me ndoza addre ssed whether t he court had jurisdiction to revie w t he BI A’s decision to assig n a single -judg e in light of the section 1003.1(e) (6) fa ct o rs . See 556 F.3d at 164 (“We thus hold that we do have j u ri sdiction to decide whether the BI A’s decision to streamline a

case under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (5)- (6) (2008) was ‘ar bitrary , capr icious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in acc orda n ce with law.’” ). That question is not befor e us today

. The QuinterosMendoza court’s centr al holding is inapposite to the Har uty uny ans’ arg ument in this reg ard; indeed,

our sister circ uit never rea ched the merits of the petitioners’ section 1003.1(e) (6) arg ument. See id. - 12 -No. 12-3594

Harutyunyan v . Holder (“[T]he BI

A’s subsequent action moot s the need to re m and Quinteros-Me ndoza’s case to a threemember pa

nel.”)

. Finally , we addre ss the Har uty uny ans’ novel claim that failing to assig n their case to the same BI A decisionmake r on their second administrative appea l constituted a violation of due proce ss. The BI A’s org anizational reg ulations do not require su c h a n e xtr a o r d in ary g uara

ntee in the administrative appea ls proce ss; to the contra ry , the rules only state that “ a single Boa rd member” shall be assig ned
to decide a case . See, e.g. , 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (empha sis added)

. I f the Har uty uny ans are claiming

a constitutional due proce ss violation arising from the BI A’s failure to assig n their case to the same decisionmake r, that ar g ument is also without merit. Cf. Fitzgerald v. W ithrow , 292 F.3d 500, 503 (6th Cir. 2002) (“We would never hold that a trial court was constitu t ionally require d to honor a defe ndant’s reque st for a bench trial befor e a particula r judge .”); see also Firishchak v. Holder , 636 F.3d 305, 310 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The Fifth Amendment’s due proce ss c lause g uara ntees the rig ht to an im partial decisionmaker, .

. . but not to a particular judge .” (c itations omi tted)). Discerning no due proc ess violation in this matter, we cannot g rant the pe tition for review on such g rounds. V. For the re asons above , we DENY the petition for re view.

- 13 -