The Honor able Alg enon L . Marbley , United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng 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: 06a0715n.06 F iled: October 4, 2006 No. 05-3687 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
NAT HE R H AB EB S HA BA TA WFEK ) AL -S HA BEE , ) ) P etitioner , ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE v. ) UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT ) COURT F OR THE NORT HERN AL BER TO R . G ON Z AL ES, A tt or ne y ) DI STRIC T OF OHI O G e ne r al o f the Uni te d St at e s, ) ) De fend ant -A ppe lla nt . ) OP IN ION

Before: RY AN and MARTIN, Circ uit Jud ges; M ARBLEY, District Judge.* ALGENON L. MA RBLEY, District Court Judge. Petitioner Nather

Habe b Shaba Ta

wfe k Al-Shabee , a citizen of Iraq, se eks re view of a decision of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (the “ Boa rd”) , aff irming the I mmigration J udg e’s denial of a sy lum, withholdi ng of depor tation, and re lief under

the United Nations’ Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . Al-Shabee also appe als the B oard’ s decision that the Immigration J udg e af forde d Al-Shabee due proc ess duringhis removal proc eeding . Be cause the Immigration J udg e’s de termination that the Petitioner was not c redible w as supported by substantial evidence , and bec ause the Boa

rd cor rec tly deter mined that Al-Shabee had not demonstrate d any prejudice2

as a r esult of an a lleg ed due pr ocess violation, we de ny the petition for re view as to Al-Shabe e’s
r e m o v a b i l i ty. I. BACKG ROUND A. F acts The followingfac ts were alleg ed by the Petitioner in his request for asylum, withholdi ng of depor tation, and re lief under

the CAT. Pe tit ion e r N a the r H a

be b Sh a ba Ta wf e k A l- Sha be e is a c iti zen and natio na l of

Ira q. Al

Shabee a nd his family

are Chaldean Christians, which a re e thnic and re ligious minorities in I raq. Ad dit ion a lly , h is f

a the r a nd a ll o f h is unc le s w e re me mbe rs in t he As sy ri an D e moc ratic M o v e m e n t( “ A D M ” ) , a

p o l i t i c a l p arty

th a to p p o s e d

S a d d amH u s s e i nan d

th e B a ’ a thP arty . In April 1994, Al-Shabee ’s father wa s arr ested a nd detained f

or two and a

half months for supporting the ADM. Ac c or din g to A l- Sha

be e , h e ha s su ff

e re d f ro m r e lig iou s p e rs e c uti on sin c e his e arl y childhood. In elementa

ry school, he wa s compelled to study I slam, and he w as pena liz ed for not beinga Moslem. His Ara bic languag e tea cher

called him der og atory

names “ beca

use the Moslems considere d the Christians and J ews a s impure ac cordingto their I slamic law, whic h ins tig a te s th e m to hate .” Al -S ha be e su ff e re d f ro m th is m istre a tme nt t

hr ou g h inte rm e diate sc ho ol, wh e n te a c he rs fo rc e d h im t o me mor ize po e ms that g lor if ie d I sla m, a nd thr ou g h h ig h s c ho ol, when he was c onstantly

interrog ated a

nd criticized for not supportingthe B a’ath Party
. In 2001, Al-Shabee g raduated from the Colleg e of A g riculture at the University of Mousel, rec eiving a bac helor’s de g ree and a ma ster’s de g ree in Ag riculture. A fter graduation, he
serve d for 90 da

y s in the I raqi military , which all colleg e g raduates in I raq a re r equire d to do.3

Whil e in the military , Al-Shabee was de tained bec ause of his refusa l to join t he B a’ath Party
. Even a fter A l-Shabee was de mobiliz ed fr om the milit ary and he r eturne d to his home vill ag e, B a ’ a thP arty o f

f i c i a l s c o n t i nu e d

t o r e c r u i th i s s u p p o rta g g r e s s i v e l y. On July 17 , 2 00 2, Al -S ha

be e c la ims that so me of

the re lig iou s le a de rs fr om t he Shi ite Al

Shibek tribe enter ed their villag e and be g an to construc t a mosque, attempting to conver t the village r to I slam by

forc e. The Shiit e Al-Shibek tribesme n blocked the villag e roa ds and otherwise inter fer ed with the villag ers’ lives. I n response , Al-Shabee and about twe nty other y oungme n f

ro m th e vil la g e , u sin g g un s, e ng a g e d th e Shi ite Al -S hib e k tr ibe sme n in a fi g ht. As a result of the f

ight, the Shiite Al-Shibek tribesmen f led the ar ea a

nd returne d to their own villag e. On Octobe r 15, 2002, Al-Shabe e re ceive d a ca ll up notice, instructing him to re port for duty with the “Al Quds Ar

my ,” a state sanc tioned milit ia. The notice indicated that he would be imprisoned if he did not appe ar at the Ba ’ath Party cente r to serve . Al-Shabee complied with the notice, but instructed the militia men that he would be unable to ser ve bec ause his fa

mily neede d him to work on their fa

rm. Al-Shabee was una

ble to persua de them to re lieve him of ser vice. Acc ording ly , the militi a sent him to a trainingcamp in the Al Salama territory of the State of N i n e v a o nO c t o b e r

1 6 , 2 0 0 2
. A l

- S h a

b e e e s c a p e d f r o mth e tr a i n i n g c amp o nth e f o l l o w i n g d ay,
and he re tur ne d to his vil la g e . H e sta y e d at hi s u

nc le ’s ho us e , r e a lizin g that th e B a ’a th P art y of fi c ia ls w ou ld l ike ly

se arc h f or him a t hi s h ou se . T wo da

y s late r, B a ’ath P art

y a g e nts approa ched A l-Shabee ’s father, de manding Al-Shabee ’s re turn to the trainingcamp a nd threatening to imprison his fathe r. A f e w d ay s late r, on

Oc tob e r 2 4, 20 02 , me mbe rs of the Shi ite Al -S hib e k tr ibe re tur ne d to Al-Shabee ’s villag e to occ upy their land. The tribesman ar g ued that they wer e entitled to the4

land as c ompensation for the injuries their fe llow tribesmen had suff ere d during the J uly

17, 2002 sh oo tin g inc ide nt. Th is i nit iate d a no the r b ruta l f

ig ht b e tw e e n th e vil la g e rs and the Shi ite Al

Shibek tribe members. The tribesmen, usingknives and small swords, killed four of the villag ers and wounde d others. When the police inter vened, the killers wer e ar rested, a nd Al-Shabee testified ag ainst two of the tribesmen he had see n car rying knive s and stabbingthe villag ers. Some of the Moslem relig ious leader s and B a’ath Party officia ls intervened on be half of the alleg ed murde rer s. Neve rtheless, the tribe smen wer e convic ted and se ntence to five months imp ri so nme nt. A fe w day s later, Al- Shabee r ece ived a letter at his house from membe rs of the A l-Shibek and other Moslem tribes, threatening to kill hi m beca use he ha d testified. Al-Shabe e’s f ather insisted that Al-Shabee f

lee Iraq. A l-Shabee contac ted a Kur dish smugg ler, a nd he fle d Iraq on November

4, 2002, bound for the United States of Amer ica. B. Pr ocedural History Al-Shabee enter ed the United States on D ece mber 2, 2002. Soon afte r he c rossed the bo rd e r f ro m T iju ana , M e xico int o Ca lif or nia , a bo rd e r p a tr ol o ff

ic e r s top pe d h im a

nd se rv e d h im wi th a No tic e to A

pp e ar t o a re mov a l he ari ngfo r h is i lle g a l e ntr y int o th e Un ite d St a te s. Al

Sha be e a dmi tte d to the fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns in h is N oti c e to A pp e ar a nd c on c e de d th a t he is
re mov a ble a s c ha rg e d. Al -S ha

be e ’s re mov a l c a se wa s th e n tr ans fe rr e d f ro m Sa n D ie g o to De tr oit
. On August 13, 2003, Al-Shabee f iled an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal and supportingdocumentation. On De cembe r 8, 2003, Al-Shabe e appe are d befor e an immigration judge f

or his remova l proce eding . Duringthe hea ring , Al-Shabee did not presentWe encounter ed sig nificant diff iculty when we attempted re view the wr itten transcr ipt of 1 the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s or a l or de r i n th e Joint Ap pe nd ix fo r t

his c a se , d

ue to a se e min g ly lackluster c opy

job. As a re sult, we reque sted that counsel pr ovide us with a more le g ible written c op y of that or a l or de r. Couns e l f a ile d to re sp on d to our r e qu e st p ri or to o ra l argume nt i n th is matter. Initially , we we re he sitant to render a dec ision on the merits in thi s case , and we c on sid e re d r e mand ingthi s c a se ba c k to the B oa rd , b e c a us e we did

no t ha ve a c omp le te re c or d to revie w on appe al. Ne ve rt he le ss, we have de c ide d to a dd re ss t he me ri ts o f t

his a pp e a l f or tw o r e a so ns . F ir st, bo th p art ie s’ c ouns e l ma int a ine d th a t th e re wa s su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d f

or thi s Co ur t to rende r an opinion duringoral a rgument in this m atter. Sec ond, on J uly 20, 2006, the day following oral a

rgument, the g overnme nt supplemented the re cord w ith a corr ecte d written copy of the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s or a l or de r. Whil e we c ho os e to r e a c h th e me ri ts i n th is c a se , w e a lso caution counse l, in the stronge st manner possible, to re spond to this C ourt’s future reque sts in a more e x peditious manner. 5 any wi tne sse s. F oll ow ingthe he ari ng , th e I mmi g ra tio n Jud g e iss ue d a

n o ra l de c isi on

de nyingAl

Sha be e the re lie f h e re qu e ste d. Th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ba se d h e r r uli ngon an a dv e rs e 1
cre dibilit y

deter mination. On appea l, the Boa rd adopte d and af

firmed the Immigration J udg e’s decision in a pe r cur ium order. Additionally , the B oard f ound that Al-Shabee had not ar ticulated a due pr ocess violation. II. AN AL YSI S

A. Al-Shabee’s Application f or Asylum and Related Relief When the Boa

rd summarily

adopts the dec ision of an Immigration J udg e without issuing its own opinion, we review the Immigration J udg e’s de cision as the fina l administrative order
. Ha sa n v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 7 F. 3 d

4 1 7 , 4 1 9 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g De nk o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003). The B oard’ s findings of fac t “ar e conc lusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compe lled to conclude to the c ontrary .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (B ). As longas there exis ts substantial evidence in the rec ord fr om which the B oard ba sed its decision, we c annot
reve rse the B oard’ s decision to deny Petitioner relief

from re moval. Se e Ad

hiy ap pa v . I NS , 586

F.3d 261, 265 ( 6th Cir. 1995) (“All the substantial evide nce sta ndard r equire s is that the [Board]’s conc lusion, based on the evide nce pr esente d, be substantially rea sonable. Substantial
e vid e nc e is thu s a

de fe re nti a l st and ard

wh ic h p la inl y

do e s n ot e nti tle a

re vie wi ngc ourt

to r e ve rs e . . . simply

beca use it is convinced that it would have decide d the ca se diffe rently .”) ( internal quotations omit ted). An applica

nt for asy lum under Section 208(a ) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has the burd e n o f d e mon str a tin g that he is a “ re fu g e e ,” me anin g that he is unw ill ingor un a ble to return to his home c ountry “bec ause of

perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on
acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political op ini on [.]” 8 U .S. C. § 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A) ; INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 436 (1987). A p e rs on may qu a lif y a s a re fu g e e ba se d s ole ly

on pa st p e rs e c uti on . 8 C.F .R. 208.13(b)( 1). I f past per secution is established, then a rebuttable presumption arises that the applicant a lso has a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. Id . After an applica

nt establishes p as tp er s ec u t i o n , th e p re s u mp t i o no f f u ture p er s ec ut i o nca nb e r eb u t t edi f a ni m m i gra t i o nj u d ge fi nd s, by a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e , th a t th e re ha s b e e n a fu nd ame nta l c ha

ng e in
c ir c ums tanc e s su c h th a t th e a pp lic ant n o lo ng e r h a s a

we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f p e rs e c uti on

in h is country of nationality
. Id
. Alternatively , an applica

nt may show a we ll-founded f

ear of future perse cution if he de mon str a te s th a t he g e nu ine ly fe ars pe rs e c uti on

if he re tur ns to h is h ome c ountr

y and that a
rea sonable pe rson in his circumstanc es would fe ar pe rsec ution. 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b)(2)( I ); see also Cardoza-Fonseca , 4 80 U. S. at 43 9 ( “ In g e ne ra l, t he a pp lic ant’ s sh ou ld b e c on sid e re d w e llfo un de d if

he c an e sta

bli sh , to a re a so na ble de g re e , th a t hi s c on tin ue d s tay in h is c ountr

y of or ig in7

ha s b e c ome int ole ra

ble to h im f

or the re a so ns state d in

the de fi nit ion , o r w ou ld f or the same
rea sons be intolerable if he re turned ther e.”) (quotation omitted). A re quest for a sy lum automatically includes a r equest for

withholding depor

tation. 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(b). To make a suf ficient showingfor withholding of depor tation, an applica

nt must show, by

a cle ar pr obability

standard, that his li fe or

fre edom would be thre atene d on
acc ount of one of the enumer ated g rounds. IN S v . S te v ic , 467 U.S. 407 (1987); Mikhailev itch v. IN S , 1 46 F .3 d 3 84 , 3 91 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) . B e c a us e the sta

nd ard fo r gra nti nga sylum

is l e ss str ing e nt t ha n th e sta nd ard fo r w ithho ldi ngof

de po rt a tio n, an a

pp lic ant who do e s n ot e sta bli sh elig ibilit y for a sylum is not elig ible for withholding of depor tation. See M

ikhaievitch , 146 F.3d at 391. 1
. I m m i gra t i o nJ u d ge’ s C re d i b i l i ty Fi n d i n gs Al-Shabee ’s first ar g ument is that the I mmigration J udg e improper ly found him to be not
cre dible. Credibility

deter minations are c onsidered f indings of f

act, a nd there fore , they

are g rante d substantial defe renc e. Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 ( 6th Cir. 2004). In this case, the Immigration J udg e identified por tions of Al-Shabee ’s testimony that she fo un d to be no t c re dib le . F or e xamp le , th e I mmi g ra

tio n Jud g e no te d in

he r d e c isi on

that A lShabee “ claim[ed] t o have be en abuse d verba lly , forc ed to lear n I slamic poetry

and his g rade s suffe red to the e x tent that he wa s unable to ac hieve a g rade point necessa

ry to enter the colleg e of his choice. N ever

theless, the re spondent was g iven a hig her e ducation.” Moreove r, the Immigration J udg e identified inc onsistencies in Al-Shabee ’s testimony with respec t to the events surroundingthe fig hting that oc curr ed betwe en Al-Shabe e’s villag ers and a r ival Moslem tribe. She descr ibed how Al-Shabe e’s or al testimony was unc lear

and8

contra dictory

as to whethe r the incide nt resulted in any casua lties. She further obse rved that, on
cr o s s -e x am i n at i o n , Al -S h ab ee cl ai m edth at th e S h i i t e A l -S h i b ektri b es m en we re b u i l d i n g a mosque in his vill ag e whe n the fig hting c ommenced, de spite his affidavit, which e x plained that these e vents happe ned “when [the Moslems] cut off r oads to the villag e people and pre cluded them from wor

king on the ir far

ms.” The Immigration J udg e wa s also troubled with the conf licts appare nt in Al-Shabee’ s testimony conce rningevents that oc curr ed in Octobe r 2002, shortly befor e Al-Shabe e’s de parture fr o mIra q . Ind i s cu s s i n g t h es e i n co n s i s t en ci es , th e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge p ro v i d edth e f o l l o wi n g: [Al-Shabee] claims that on October 14th or 15th he g ot a letter telling him he ha d to report [to] the ar my and to re take Jerusalem or Palestine, rema ined one da y in a trainingcamp a

nd deser ted re tur nin g to t he fa mil y . A t th e same tim e , [A l- Sha be e ] is a pp are ntl y wo rk inghis fa

the r’ s f ie lds ; . . . h e ’s a lso ob ta ine d a pa ssp or t on Oc tob e r 9 th, a lth ou g h h e c la ims that he wa s to ld t he pa ssp or

t would not permit his travel outside the countr y beca use he ha d a masters de g ree . He testifies at a trial with the B a’ath Party police ag ainst two Shii tes who alleg edly killed two members of the Chr ist ian Ch a lde an c omm un ity . It’ s p re sume d h e te sti fi e d und e r h is own name, in ope n court, nothing happene d. He wa s not detained fo r d e se rt ion , a lth ou g h a lle g e dly he de se rt e d n o mo re tha

n 1 0 d ay s previously

and B a’ath Party

members ha d come to his fathe r’s home o na p p r o xim a te ly

th e 1 8 th o r 1 9 th te ll in g h im

th a t [ A l- Sh a

b e e ] wa s i ns er i o u s tro u

b l e f o r t h i s d es ert i o n . He re m ai n [ ed ] fo l l o wi n g this testim ony

for a period of some [] 10 day s, while he made arr ang e me nts to t

ra ve l to the Un ite d St a te s. Qu ite fr ank ly thi s is not consistent or cre dible. Additionally , the Immigration J udg e rule d that Al-Shabee failed to provide sufficie nt
ev i d en ce t o m ee th i s b urd en t o p ro v e h e w as a “ re fu gee . ” S p ec i fi ca l l y , th e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge found: [Al-Shabee] has submitt ed no evide nce . . . that there w as the

forc ible ere ction of a mosque in his villag e, which r esulted in theThe Immigration J udg e’s f inding of past perse cution appea

rs contra dictory . Her

oral 2 d ec i s i o np ro v i d es th e f

o l l o wi n g: The Court take s note that [Al-Shabee] claims to have be en deta ined in that 90 day s [t hat he se rved in the I raqi military

afte r he g ra du a te d f

ro m c oll e g e ] fo r h is f

a ilure to j oin

the B a ’ath P art

y , b ut by his own testimony

was not har

med, beaten, threatened, or tortured at any time. There fore , the Court finds that there is evidence in the r e c o r d o f p a s t p e r s e c u ti o nto [A l- Sh a b e e ].
9 a tta c k in July 20 02 by he and so me 20 oth e rs . [A l- Sha

be e ] cl a ims that, with respec t to the attack in Oc tober, a trial was he ld, he testified, and the individuals we re c onvicted. He submitt ed no e vid e nc e of

thi s, fo llo we d b y

his ow n te sti mony

[that] wh e n h e le ft I raq, he knew he was c oming to the United States to a pply for asylum. These ar e docume nts which clea rly could have been o b t a i n e d a f t e r h i s e n tr y i nD e c e mb e r

2 0 0 2
. T h e r e i s qu i t e s i mp l y inconsistent testimony

in this m atter a

nd [Al-Shabee] has failed to submit corroborative evidenc e. B e c a us e the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ha s id e nti fi e d s ub sta nti a l e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d to support her f

actua l finding that Al-Shabee ’s story was not cr edible, we will not reverse her decision under

revie w. Se e Ad

hiy ap pa v . I NS , 58 F.3d at 265. 2. Past Persecution Next, Al-Shabee a

rgues that the Immigration J udg e should have g rante d him asylum after she found the he had suff ere d past perse cution. His argument, howeve r, fa ils to consider the 2 eff ect that the g overnme nt’s evidenc e of c hang ed cir cumstance s had on the Immigration J udg e’s finding . In particula

r, the Immigration J udg e found: The Gove rnment has c urre ntly submitt ed evide nce of

chang ed circ umstances. []. The entry into I raq a

nd the dispossession of the Ba ’ath Party

obviates Al-Shabe e’s c oncer ns of past per secution. T h e c o a l i t i o nf

o r c e s an d th e A s s yr i anD e m o c r a t i c P arty i nc o mp an y with the Christian Democra tic Party controlled the nor

th. [Al-Shabee] has submitt ed no evide nce which would establish that,10 should he retur

n, that an attac k by

a Shiite Muslim would not be me t w itha

re sp on se by

e ith e r t he c oa lit ion

or the g ov e rnme nt. After an applica

nt establishes past per secution, the pre sumption of future per secution ca n be re butted if an immigr ation judge finds, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that ther e has be en a funda mental cha

ng e in circ umstances suc h that the applica nt no longe r has a

well-founde d fea

r of per secution in his country of nationality . 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b)( 1)(I ). He re, the I mmigration J udg e made such a f

inding of a cha ng e in circ umstances in Iraq, which had the e ffe ct of re butting Al-Shabee ’s pre sumption of future per secution. B eca use the Immigration J udg e base d her fac tual finding of cha

ng ed cir cumstance s on evidenc e in the re cord, w e will not reve rse he r decision. Se e Ad

hiy ap pa v . I NS , 58 F.3d at 265. 3. Fe ar of

Persec ution Finally , Al-Shabee contends that the Immigration J udg e should have g rante d him asylum beca use he ma de a suf

ficient showingof his well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. The I mmi g ratio n Jud g e e xpre ssl y re je c te d A l- Sha

be e ’s argume nts : [Al- Sha be e ’s ] fe ar o f s ome punit ive a c tio n b y a g ro up fo r a

tta c ks wh ic h h e un de rt oo k d oe s n ot r ise to t he le ve l of

sh ow ingthat it

is on a c c ount o f e ith e r h is r e lig ion or his pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up , b ut r a th e r a p p e ar s t o b e a

r e v e n g e a t t a c k

f o r ana t t a c k t ak e nb y [Al-Shabee] himself. I n any event, the Court f

inds that [ Al-Shabee ] has not established a w e ll

- f o un d e d f e ar o f p e r s e c u ti o no n

an y o f th e f iv e [s tatuto r

y ] g ro un ds sh ou ld h e re tur

n. I t f oll ow s th e re fo re that [Al -S ha be e ] ha s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s ha c l e ar p r o b a b i l i ty o f p e r s e c u t i o no nth e s t a tu t o r y g rounds nec essar

y to establish relief unde r Section 241(b) (3).11

Be cause we must defe r to the Immigration J udg e’s f actua l finding, which is based on he r revie w of e vidence in the rec ord, that Al-Shabe e has not e stablished a we ll-founded f ear of perse cution, this court will not reverse her de cision. Se e Ad hiy ap pa v . I NS , 58 F.3d at 265.

B. D ue P r oc e ss Al-Shabee also asser

ts that the I mmigration J udg e violated his due pr ocess r ights whe n she “attempt[ ed] to diss ect [Al-Shabee ’s] testim ony , application and a ffidavit as w ell as the documents with the express purpose of finding inconsistencies to deny the Petitioner’s cla im.” Pet’r B r. at 11. Aliens a

re e ntitled to the protections of due pr ocess in asy lum hearing s. Se e Al i
v . A sh c ro ft , 3 66 F .3 d 4 07 , 4 12 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . T his pr ote c tio n e nti tle s a lie ns to a fu ll a nd fa ir hear ing. Id . T o d e mon str a te that a de c isi on vio late s th e Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e , a n a pp lic ant m

us t establish that he has be en depr ived of a life, liberty , or prope rty

interest. As hk

i v . I NS , 233 F.3d 913, 921 (6th Cir. 2000). We revie w de novo alleg ations of due pr ocess violations by an immigration judge dur ing a remova l hear ing. Mikhaiev itch , 146 F.3d at 391. In th is c a se , A l- Sha

be e ha s n ot a sse rt e d a

c la im that r ise s to the le ve l of a du e pr oc e ss
v i o l at i o n . He m er el y

as s ert s th atth e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge e rr edwh en s h e m ad e i n co rr ec tfi n d i n gs with respec t to his credibility . He notes that “the [I mmigration J udg e] took pains to avoid an objective r eview of

the fa cts in the application and [Al-Shabee’s] testimony .” Pet’r B r. at 13. Al-Shabee ’s disag ree ment with the I mmigration J udg e’s or der, how ever , does not constitute a violation of the Due Proc ess Clause. See Catholic Soc. Se rv., Inc . v. Re no , 134 F.3d 921, 927 (9th Cir. 1998) (“ Simpl y

labelinga cla im as constitutional does not suffice to make it so.”) (c itatio n o mitte d) . T he re fo re , A l- Sha be e ’s du e pr oc e ss c la im i s w ith out me ri t.12 III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the B oard’ s decision and DENY Petitioner’s reque st for re view.