N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

SILVIA ESC ALANTE-TELLEZ, Pe titione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t
. No. 14-72820 Age n c y No. A095-786-522
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2017 ** Pa se d e na , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M UR PHY, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
FEB 27 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy , III, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.Silvia Esc a la nte -Te lle z , a na tive a n d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of t h e Bo ard of Im

m igra t ion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing h e r a ppe a l of a n im m igra tion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) d e c ision de ny ing he r a pplic a t ion for a s y l um , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c t ion unde r t he C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). Esc a la nte ’ s brie f o n ly a ddre sse s a lle ge d d ue p roc e ss viola

tions; she ha s the re fore
wa ive d both a ny c ha lle nge to the de nia l of he r a pplic a tion for a sy lum ba se d upon he r
c rim ina l history a nd a ll ch al le nge s to withholding a nd C AT prote c t ions ba se d upon the re c o rd be fore the a ge nc y . Se e J ie C ui v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th C ir. 2013). W e ha ve jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a ). W e re vie w c onstitutiona l a n d othe r que stions of la

w de novo. K

han v . Holde r , 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de n y the pe tition for re vie w . 1. The IJ’ s de ve lopm e nt of t he re c ord sa tisfie d t h e r eq u i re m e nts of the Due P r o ces s C la

u se be c a use Esc a la

nte w a s give n “ a full a nd fa i r he a ring
. . . a n d a
re a s ona ble opportunity to pre se nt e vide nc e o n [he r] be ha l f.” Zolotuk hin v . Gonzale

s , 4 1 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 73, 1075 (9th C ir. 2005). Esc a la nte wa s pe rm itte d t o file e xhibits prior to h e r h e a ring, but d i d not. At Esc a la nte ’ s re q ue s t, the IJ re c e i v ed an d r evie we d the
c opie s of e xhibits tha t Esc a la n te brought to he r h e a ring, pe rm i tte d Escal an t e to
e la bora te on t

he m , a nd spoke w ith he r a bout the c o n t en t s o f t h e e xhibits. And e v e n though Esc a la

nte did not bring he r inte rne t re se a rc h c onc e rning he r e x-husba nd’ s 2 1 1

- 7 3 9 2 2gove rnm e nta l e m ploy m e nt, the B IA a c c e pte d his e m ploy m e n t as f ac t in m a king its ruling. The IJ’ s f

a ilure to a l low untim e l y e x hibits or pursue a d d itiona l que stions
re ga rding the unfile d e x h ibit did not viola te the Due Proc e ss C la

use . 2. The IJ a c t e d a s a n e utra l fa c t finde r i n sa tisfa c tion o f the D ue Proc e ss C la use . All of the que stions the IJ a s ke d a t the he a rings tha t Esc a la nte c ite d in h e r brie fs we re pe rtine nt to the le ga l issue s be fore the IJ or logic a lly proc e e de d from the te stim ony of witne s se s. In c o nt ex t , t he IJ’ s que stions, c om m e nts, a nd tone a re ne ithe r c le a r
a c c usa tions of m ora l b a nkruptc y , nor do the y re ve a l tha t the IJ ha d pre judge d the c a se . C ompare Almaghzar v . Gonzale s , 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th C ir. 2006) (re c ogniz ing the IJ’ s im pa tie nt de m e a nor a s pe rm issible ), w i th Re y e s-Me l e nde

z v . IN S , 342 F.3d 1001, 1007 ( 9 t h C ir. 2003) (c hronic ling the IJ’ s m a ny m ora lly c ha rge d sta te m e nts). Ac c ordingly , the B IA c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha t the IJ’ s q ue stions d id not i n t er f

er e with Esc a la

nte ’ s a b ility t o pre se nt he r c a se . S e e Almaghzar , 4 57 F.3d a t 922 (finding
no d ue p roc e ss viola

tion w he re IJ prov ide d pe titione r “ a m p le opportunity to pre se nt his c a se ” ). 3. The IJ’ s fa i lure to a d

v ise Esc a la

nte on he r pote ntia l e ligibility for a U Visa
wa s not pre

judic ia l. Nothing h a s pre ve nte d Esc a la nte from a pply ing for a U Visa a

n d the n se e k ing a c ontinua

nc e or joint m otion to te rm ina t e t he re m ova l proc e e dings while he r a pplic a t ion wa s pe nding. S e e 8 C .F.R
. § 214.14(c )(1). Ye t Esc a la n te h a s not done 3 1 1

- 7 3 9 2 2so. She thus c a nnot sa y that “ the IJ’ s c o nduc t p ote ntia lly [a ffe c te d] the outc om e of the proc e e dings.” Se e C ano-Me rida v . IN

S , 3 11 F.3d 9 60, 9 65 (9th C i r. 2002) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d) (quoting C

olme nar v . IN

S , 210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th C ir. 2000)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

4 1 1

- 7 3 9 2 2