2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-19-2004 

# C indulet v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3498

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C indule t v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 997. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/997NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-3498 AUREL SILVIU CINDULET, Petitioner
v. JOHN ASH CROFT, ATTOR NEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES, Respondent
On Petiti on for Review of a FinalOrder of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (BIA No. A29-606-491)

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 27, 2003 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , N YGAARD an d AMBRO Circuit Judges (Fil ed February

19, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT

SC IRI CA , Chief Judge
. At issue in this appeal i s (1) whethe r the Board of Immigrat ion Appeals er red by refusi ng to provi de de novo review b y a three-judge pan el over an Im migration C ourt’s1 Un der the Ho mela nd S ecurity A ct of 2 002 , Pub . L. N o. 107 -296 , § 451 , 116 S tat.

213 5, 219 5, the f

unctio ns of

the IN S w ere tran sferre d fro m the De partm ent of Justice to the Unite d States Department of Homeland Security effective March 1, 2003. 2 decisi on denying petitioner’ s appli cati on for rel ief on asylum and withhol ding of removal clai ms; (2) whether the BIA is requir ed to expl ain why t hree-j udge revie w is unwarrant ed in petitioner ’s case ; and (3) whether the Immigrat ion Judge vi olate d petitioner’ s due process rights . Some of thes e issue s were recently addresse d by our

Court in Dia v. Ash croft , 353 F.3d 228 ( 3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). As we find no error, we will affi rm the ju dgm en t o f the BIA
. I Petitioner AurelSilviu Cindulet is a native and a ci tize n of Romania who was admitt ed to the United States on or about March 18, 1991, as a non-immigr ation vi sit or for p leasur e w ith auth ority to rem ain in th e U nited S tates fo r a tem pora ry period until September 17, 1991. Cindul et remai ned in the United States bey ond that date without authori zati on. On April, 7, 1998, the Immigrat ion and Natura lization Ser vice 1 executed a Noti ce to Appear char ging Cindule t with being removable as an ali en who remained in t he Un ited Sta tes for long er than perm itted by § 2 37 o f the Im migra tion an d N ationa lity Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a )(1)( B). On February 17, 1999, t

he Immigrat ion Judge deni ed Cindu let’s application for asylum a nd w ithholding of remov al but granted h is voluntary request for depart

ure to l eave the Unit ed State s. Cindul et appeal ed to the BIA, and on2 The B IA’s jurisdiction arose under 8 C.F.R. § 1 003.2(a) (20 02), wh ich grants the B IA

auth ority to reco nsid er o r reo pen any c ase in w hich it had pre vio usly re nde red a de cisio n. We have juris dicti on to revi ew the BIA’s decis ion in a removal case bas ed on § 242 of the Immigr ation and National ity Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1252. This secti on confers j urisdi ction to re view fina l ord ers o f rem ova l, incl udi ng d enia ls of mo tion s to re con side r. Id. Venue is pro per in th is co urt. See id. (stating th at a pe tition m ust be filed in the co urt of a ppea ls for the judicial circuit in w hich the pro ceedings b efore the im migration jud ge w ere comp leted). 3 Jun e 18 , 200 2, it su mm arily affirm ed th e Im mig ratio n Ju dge ’s de cisio n w itho ut o pin ion
. Cin dul et did not file a n ap pea l of th is ord er. On July 1 5, 20 02, C ind ulet filed a mo tion to re con side r ass ertin g, inter alia , that the B IA im prop erly sum marily affirme d his c ase an d req uested that a “ three ju dge p anel” reconsi der the matter. Cindulet also det aile d various due process violations by the Immigrat ion Judge t

hat impai red the f

airnes s of the hearing. On August 21, 2002, t he BIA denied Cindulet ’s moti on to recons ider for a “failure to meet

essent ial s tatutoryor regu latory requ ireme nts” b ecau se C indu let failed to pres ent: (1) a ny evide nce th at it overlooked any as pect of t he case, (2) any

additi onal argument s that could not have been mad e dur ing its p reviou s revie w, o r (3) an y relevan t chan ge in th e law . Cind ulet ap peals the BIA ’s order. 2 II Cindulet assert s his cl aims require de novo review before a three -judge pane l and alle ges the BIA’s de nial of the moti on request ing de novo review impro perly failed to identif y the spec ific reas ons w hy this cas e did n ot requ ire three -judg e revie w. W e hold3 W e rev iew a B IA dec ision den ying a mo tion to re con side r fo r ab use of d iscre tion
.

See INS v. D oher ty , 502 U .S. 314 , 323 ( 199 2) (statin g that th e den ial of a mo tion to reopen is rev iewed for abuse of discretion reg ardless of the u nderlying basis of the alien’s requ est for relief); Noco n v. INS , 789 F.2d 1028, 1033 (3d Cir. 1986) (re viewing the BIA ’s denial of a m otion to recon sider for abu se of discretion.). 4 that t he BIA acted in ac cordance wit h the val id streamli ning provi sions and made no er ror in denying the m otion to recon sider. 3 In Dia , 353 F.3d 228, we addressed t he vali dity

of the st reamli ning provi sions t hat Cindulet chall enges. We held t

hat “the str eamlining provisi ons and the BIA’s i ssuance of an [affir mance without opinion] . . . di d not viol ate ei ther t he INA or the Consti tuti on.” Id. at 245. We noted that “ [n]eit her the Constitution nor Congres s guarant ee a de novo review by

the BIA, nor do t

hey guar antee a right to a full y r easoned opini on by t he BIA.” Id. at 243 (citati on omitt ed). We furt her held: “[T]he fact

that t he revie w is done byone
mem ber of the B IA and that the decision is no t accom panied b y a fully reasoned BIA decisi on may be l ess desirable f rom the pet iti oner’s point of vie w, but it does not make the proce ss constitutionally ‘ unfair. ’” Id. at 243-44. Accordingly , the stre amlini ng provisi ons are val id. Un der the stream lining p rovisio ns, a sin gle bo ard m emb er to w hom the ca se is assigne d may affi rm an immigration judge’ s decis ion without an opinion i f the member determ ines tha t the resu lt was correc t and th at “(A ) the issu e on a ppea l is squa rely control led by

existing Board or fe deral c ourt pr ecedent and doe s not i nvolve the applic ation of

precedent

to a novelfact situati on; or ( B) the fact ual and l egal questions4 Where the BIA adopts t he opinion of

the Immigr ation J

udge as it s own, we review the dec ision of th e Im mig ratio n Ju dge as th e fin al de cisio n of the a gen cy. See Gao v. Ash croft , 2 99 F .3 d 26 6, 271 (3 d Ci r. 200 2) . We re vi ew de novo whether Cindul et’s due pro ces s righ ts ha ve b een vio lated
. SeeChon g v. INS , 264 F.3d 378, 386 (3d Cir. 2001)
. (co ntin ued ...) 5 rais ed on appeal ar e so insubs tanti al that thr ee Member review is not warranted. ” 8 C.F.R. § 1 003.1(a)(7). If those conditions are met, the regulation provides tha t the BIA must is sue an order

that reads: “‘ The Board affirms, without opinion, t he resul t of the decisi on below. The deci sion bel ow is, t herefore, the fi nal agency determi nation. ’” Id. The order “sha ll not

include further

explanat ion or r easoning. ” Id. Here, in its June 18, 2002 Order, t he BIA followed the pr ecise di ctat es of the stre amlini ng provisi ons, and t hat is all t

hat is requir ed. In its August 21, 2002 Order, t he BIA made no error in de nying the mo tion to reconside r. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1 003.2(b)(3), “[a] moti on to recons ider bas ed solely on an argument that the case should not

have been affirm ed w ithout o pinion by a sing le Bo ard M emb er, or by a th ree-M emb er pan el, is barred. ” Id. Accordingly , the BIA properly dismis sed Cindulet ’s moti on to recons ider beca use it “fail[ed ] to me et esse ntial statu tory or reg ulatory req uirem ents o r is exp ressly excluded by statute or regulation.” 8 C .F.R. § 100 3.1(d)(2)(i)(H). III Cindulet alle ges cert ain due proc ess viol ations occurred at his immigrat ion hearing. Parti cularly, he all eges the I mmigrati on Judge rest rict ed testimony and argument to his d etrime nt. 4 Assuming these c laims were properly rais ed, 5 they a re w itho ut m erit.4 (.. .cont inued)

We will uphold findings of fact to the e xtent t

hey are “support ed by r easonable , substantial, and probative evidence on t he record c onsider ed as a whole. ” Balasu bra manr im v . I

NS , 143 F.3d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 199 8).
5 Respondent cont ends Cindulet fail ed to appealthe BIA’s June 18, 2002 Order, and acco rding ly, we sh ould not ad dress th e due proc ess cla ims. R egard less, thes e claim s fail on the merits. 6 Due process req uires that a petitioner: “(1) be e ntitled to factfinding b ased on a record produced before the Board and di sclose d to her; (2) be al lowed to make argument s on her own behalf; and ( 3) have the right to an individuali zed deter minati on of her int erest s.” Chong , 264 F.3 d at 3 86. T he r eco rd d em ons trate s tha t Cin dul et rec eive d du e pr oce ss. We find n o erro r in the Im migra tion Ju dge’ s adm inistration of the hearin g, and his findings are supported by substantial e vidence.

IV For th e fore goin g reas ons, w e w ill affirm the B IA’s denia l of the mo tion to reconsider.