FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T Dec ember

10, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 15 54 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A9 5- 88 6- 74 3 KELLY MOMP REMIER , Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 10 , 20 08 ) Befo re DUBINA an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es , andGOLDBERG, Ju dg e. *
Hon or ab le Ric ha rdW . Gol db erg , Uni te d S ta te s C ou rt o f In te rn at io na l * Trad e Ju dg e, si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.PER CURI AM:

Thi s i s Kel ly Mom

pr em ie r’s ap pe al fro m

th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n App eal s’ jud gm en t af

firm in g t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e’s de ni al of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act, an d rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re, as well as f ro m th e BIA’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o re subm ita la te bri ef. Kell y Mo m pr em ie r, a Hai ti anna ti ve an d c it iz en , arri ve d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s in Feb ru ary 20 02 . In J ul y 20 02 , he f

il edanaffi rm at iv e as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, wh ic h st at edth athe fear edreturni ng to Hait i b ecau se of a n i m pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n, h is
m em be rs hi p i n aso ci al gro up , anda be li ef tha t p ro -g ov ern m en t s up po rte rs wou ld try to b eat , im

pr is on , or k il l h im

if h e returne d t o Hai ti . The as y lu m off ic er refe rredth e m at te r to animm ig rat io n ju dg e who de ni edMo m pr em ie r’s ap pl ic at io n aft er co nduc ti ng a he ari ng . Mo m pr em ie r ap pe al edto th e BIA. Aft er the BIA is su eda br ie fin g s ch edul e, Mo m pr em ie r m is se d t he fil in g d ead li ne . He fil eda m ot io n t o s ub m ita la te bri ef, as se rti ng th athi s m ai li ng ad dr es s h adch an ge d a ndth atth e BIA m ai le d t he br ie fin g s ch edul e to th e wro ng ad dr es s ev enth ou gh he ha d s ub m it te d ach an ge of ad dr es s fo rm . The BI A den ie d t he m ot io n a ndaffi rm edth e imm ig rat io n ju dg e’s
2de ci si on witho utop in io n. Mo m pr em ie r ap pe al s. I. A. Mo m pr em ie r fi rs t co nt en ds th atth e BIA erredin affi rm in g t he imm ig rat io n jud ge ’s den ia l o f hi s re qu es t fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . He arg ue s 1 th athe ha s es tabl is he d p as t p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n a n i m pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n a nd sh ou ldth eref

or e h av e b en efi tt edfro m

th e reb ut tabl e p res um

pt io n t ha t h e h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Furt he r, he arg ue s tha t the go ve rn m en t fai le d t o re bu t tha t p res um pt io n b ecau se itdi d n otsh ow t ha t co nd it io ns in Hait i ha ve ch an ge d s ig ni fic an tl y or t ha t M om

pr em ie r co ul d re as on ab ly relo cat e to an ot he r pa rt o f th e co un try. Bec au se th e BIA s umm ari ly affirm edth e imm ig rat io n ju dg e’s op in io n, we rev ie w th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e’s op in io n. Se e Ant ip ov a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 92 F.3 d 1 25 9, 1 26 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Whe n c on si de rin g ape ti ti on to rev ie w a fin al or de r, we rev ie w de n ov o l eg al is su es , see Mo ha m m edv. As hc ro ft, 2 61 F.3d12 44 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ), bu t we re vi ew factua l fi nd in gs un de r th e subs ta nt ia l Mo m pr em ie r di d n otpre se ntan y arg um en t fo r CAT rel ie f an d t hu s h e h as 1 ab an do ne d t ha t cl ai m . See Sep ul ve dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 26 , 12 28 n.2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ho ld in g t ha t a p arty ab an do ns anis su e whe n i t fa il s t o o fferan y arg um en t ab ou t tha t i ss ue on ap pe al ). 3ev id en ce t es t. See Al Najjar v. As hc ro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

Und er the subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t, we m us t af firm th e d eci si on if i t i s “ supp orte d by reaso nabl e, subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas a who le .” Id . at 1 28 4. “ To re ve rs e a fac tu al fin di ng by the [imm ig rat io n ju dg e], [we] m us t fi ndno t o nl y

th atth e ev id en ce s up po rts a co nt rary con cl us io n, b utth at itco m pe ls on e.” Far qu ha rs on v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 2 46 F.3d13 17 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The fa ctth atev id en ce i n t he reco rdm ay als o s up po rt aco nc lu si on co nt rary to th e ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s i s n oten ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al . Adefe m i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). B. To b e el ig ib le forasylum , an app li can t m us t p ro ve th athe is a “ refu ge e” withi n t he m ean in g o f th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act. 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(A); see De San ta m ari a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 5 25 F.3d99 9, 1 00 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). A refu ge e is de fin edas : an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of s uc h p ers on ’s nat io na li ty . . . andwho is un ab le or u nwi ll in g t o re tu rnto , andis un ab le or un wil li ng to av ai l h im se lf o r he rs el f of th e p ro te ct io n o f, th atco un try be cau se of p ers ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). 4An ap pl ic an t ca n p ro ve refu ge e st atus by pres en ti ng sp eci fic an d c red ib le

ev id en ce tha t (1 ) he su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti onbe cau se of apro te ct edgro un d; or th at(2) he ha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar tha t i f he returns , he wi ll be pe rs ecu te d b ecau se of a pr ot ect edgro un d. Si lv a v . Uni te d S ta te s Att’y Gen., 4 48 F.3d12 29 , 12 36 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Pers ecu ti on is an“ ex tre m e co nc ep t, re qu iri ng m or e th ana few is ol at edin ci de nt s o f ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n.” Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 12 31 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ An i m pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n, wh ethe r co rrec tl y orin co rrec tl y

att rib ut ed , m ay

co ns ti tu te a gr ou ndfora well -fo un de d fe ar o f po li ti cal pe rs ecu ti on withi n t he m ean in g o f th e INA.” Al Najjar, 2 57 F.3dat 1 28 7, 12 89 (al te rat io n andqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . To es tabl is h a sylum

ba se d o n p as t p ers ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m us t p ro ve (1) th athe was p ers ecu te d, an d (2 ) th atth e p ers ecu ti on was o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct ed gr ou nd . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) (1 ). A sh owi ng of p as t p ers ecu ti oncrea te s a reb ut tabl e p res um

pt io n o f a wel l-f

ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on . Id.; see San ch ez J im en ez v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 92 F.3d12 23 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d) . The ap pl ic an t’s p res um pt iv el y well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on m ay

be reb ut te d b y

th e g ov ern m en t i f th e g ov ern m en t s ho ws, by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, ei th er: (1) th atco nd it io ns inth e co un try hav e ch an ge d, o r (2 ) th atth e ap pl ic an t co ul d a vo idfutur e p ers ecu ti on by relo cat in g 5withi n t he co un try if, “un de r al l the cir cu m st an ces , itwou ldbe reas on ab le to

ex pe ctth e ap pl ic an t t o d o s o.” 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .13 (b )(1 )(i ), (b )(2 )(i i); De San tam ari a, 52 5 F .3dat 1 00 7. C. W e fi rs t ad dr es s wh ethe r Mo m pr em ie r es tabl is he d p as t p ers ecu ti onba se d on anim pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n. As anin it ia l m at te r, th e p art ie s d o n otdi sp ut e th atth e imm ig rat io n ju dg e d idno t m ak e anex pl ic itadve rs e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n. Th eref

or e, we m us t ac cep t M om

pr em ie r’s te st im on y

as t ru e. Mejia v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 98 F.3d12 53 , 12 55 , n.2 . (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). An al ie n’s cr ed ib le te st im on y m ay su st ai n t he bu rd enof p ro of if i t i s b el ie vabl e, co ns is te nt , and de ta il ed . See Nif

ta li ev v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 04 F.3d12 11 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ti ng In r e S-M -J , 21 I. & N. Dec. 72 2 (B IA 19 97 ) (s ta ti ng th atanali en ’s own te st im on y “ can su ffi ce wh ere t he tes ti m on y is be li ev ab le , con si st en t, an d su ffi ci en tl y

de ta il ed .”)). Howe ve r, th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e fo un d t ha t Mo m pr em ie r’s te st im on y

fai le d t o m eetth is bu rd enan d t ha t the ev id en ce in tro du ceddi d n otrem edy th e d efi ci en ci es in hi s t es ti m on y . Thatfin di ng is supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

6At h is he ari ng , Mo m pr em ie r te st ifi edth athi s fe ar o f returni ng to Hait i st em m edfro m th e d om in an ce o f th e “ Lav al as ” p ol it ic al party whic h h adbe enin po wer wh enhe lef

t Hai ti . He exp la in edth atev enth ou gh he was n ota po li ti cal act iv is t, the Lava la s wer e o utto ge t h im be cau se “ whe ne ve r th ey

kn ew th aty ou were n ota supp orte r of

th e Lav al as [th ey

th ou gh t] th aty ouwere ag ai ns t the m .” Mo m pr em ie r al so tes ti fie d abo utsp eci fic in st an ces of a ll eg edm is tre at m en t in vo lv in g p eo pl e h e kne w or p res um edto be Lava la s s up po rte rs . Mo m pr em ie r te st ifi edth athe be li ev edLava la s s up po rte rs ki ll edhi s fa th er whi le lo ok in g fo r Mo m

pr em ie r athi s fa th er’s h om e. He of fere d h is fathe r’s de ath cert ifi cat e as co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e. The i m m ig rat io n ju dg e d et erm in ed , ho wev er, tha t the re was “no cle ar ev id en ce as to ho w th e res po nd en t kne w th at th es e in di vi du al s wer e fro m Lava la s o r th atth ey

were l oo ki ng forth e res po nd en t.” Mo m pr em ie r’s as su m

pt io n was no t en ou gh to pe rs ua de th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e, an d th e d eat h c ert ifi cat e d idno t re m edy hi s d efi ci en t t es ti m on y . W e h av e p rev io us ly de te rm in edth atth e “ weak er the ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y . . . th e g reat er the ne edfor co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce.” Yan g v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 18 F.3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Here, h owe ve r, th e d eat h c ert ifi cat e d idno t co rro bo rat e Mo m pr em ie r’s te st im on y ab ou t the cir cu m st an ces surro un di ng th e d eat h o f hi s fa th er. The da te , pl ace, a ndde cl arerof d eat h a re al l i nc on si st en t wi th Mo m pr em ie r’s te st im on y , and 7Mo m

pr em ie r adm it te d t ha t wi th so m an y erro rs he di d n otkn ow i f th e d eat h cert ifi cat e co ul d b e co ns id ereda va li d d oc um en t. Sev eral of M om

pr em ie r’s ot he r al le ga ti on s al so lac ke d s uf fic ie ntde ta il or co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce. Mo m pr em ie r te st ifi edth athe was a tt ack edby L av al as supp orte rs whi le att en di ng a m eet in g o f a s tu de ntgro up th ateduc at edy ou ng pe op le ab ou t d em oc racy andpro m ot edli te racy. A m ob of abo utfif te enpe op le , on e o f who m

Mo m pr em ie r rec og ni zedas aLava la s s up po rte r, at ta ck edth e g ro up with ro ck s an d b at on s, ac cu si ng th em of aco ns pi racy to b oycot t an up co m in g el ect io n. Mo m

pr em ie r te st ifi edth athe was h itin m ou thwith aroc k, s tabb edin th e h an d wi th a m ach et e, an d s tabb edinth e le g wi th a kn ife . The m ob ran sa ck ed th e sc ho ol bu il di ng wher e th e m eet in g was he ldan d s etth e m eet in g p ap ers on fir e. Afte r th e m eet in g, M om

pr em ie r st ay edwith h is m om ’s frie ndfortwo da y s be cau se he th ou gh t tha t the m ob m em be rs kn ew whe re h e li ve d, an d h e was sca red to return h om e. Ther e h e rec ei ve d “ na tu ral tre at m en ts ” fo r hi s i nju rie s. The imm ig rat io n ju dg e p oi nt edou t tha t M om pr em ie r fi rs t t es ti fie d t ha t the stud en t g ro up m etin th e aft ern oo ns aft er s ch oo l, b utth athe lat er t es ti fie d t ha t o n th e d ay of t he att ackth e m eet in g was he ldin th e m orni ng . The i m m ig rat io n ju dg e th enlo ok edto th e ev id en ce an d n ot edth atbe cau se of M om pr em ie r’s “ na tu ral tre at m en ts ” h e co ul d s ub m itno m ed ic al reco rd s t o c orro bo rat e th os e in juri es . He 8co ns id ereda de nt al reco rdth atwas s ub m it te d fo r tr eat m en t re cei ve d i n t he Uni te d

St at es , bu t p oi nt edou t tha t the reco rdwas “ ba si cal ly ill eg ib le ,” an d d idno t s ho w wha t treat m en t was rece iv edan d d idno t i nd ic at e why the de nt al workwas n eed ed . Mo m pr em ie r al so tes ti fie d t ha t h e was arre st edforpa rti ci pa ti ng inan at te m pt edco up d’eta t, b utth athe ha d i n fa ctha d n otbe enin vo lv ed . The imm ig rat io n ju dg e o bs erv edth atMo m pr em ie r pr ov id edno expl an at io n fo r why of fic ia ls wou ldth in k h e h adbe enin vo lv ed , othe r th anth athe was n otpo li ti cal ly act iv e infav orof t he Lava la s. Ad di ti on al ly, he pre se nt edno ev id en ce o f hi s fi ve da y arre stor i m

pr is on m en t. “ [V]iew[ed ] . . . in the li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w[in g] all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t ha t de ci si on ,” Ade fem i, 3 86 F.3dat 1 02 7, the lac k o f sp eci fic it y inMo m pr em ie r’s te st im on y in co nju nc ti on with the lac k o f co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce s up po rts th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e’s fi nd in gs . The rec or d d oe s n otco m pe l the co nc lu si on th at Mo m pr em ie r su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on . D. Afte r de te rm in in g t ha t M om pr em ie r di d n otest ab li sh pa stpe rs ecu ti on , th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e fo un d t ha t co nd it io ns in Hait i h adch an ge d a ndth at Mo m pr em ie r co ul d re as on ab ly relo cat e wit hi n Hai ti . Thatfin di ng is als o
9supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. The Co un try Repo rts on Hum anRig ht s Prac ti ces 20 05 est ab li sh edan d M om pr em ie r te st ifi edth atform er p res id en t Aris ti de an d Lav al as are n o l on ge r in po wer. As the go ve rn m en t p oi nt s o ut , Mo m pr em ie r fea redth atLava la s, an d n otth e g ov ern m en t, wo ul d h arm hi m if h e returne d t o Hai ti . See Ma zari eg os v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 2 41 F.3d13 20 , 13 27 (“ [W] he re the all eg edpe rs ecu to rs are n otaffi li at edwith t he go ve rn m en t, i t i s n ot un reas on ab le to requi re a re fu ge e who ha s an in te rn al res ettl em en t al te rn at iv e in hi s o wn co un try to p ur su e th atop ti on be fo re s eek in g p erm an en t re se tt le m en t i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, o r atlea stest ab li sh th atsu ch anop ti on is un av ai labl e.”). Add it io na ll y , Mo m

pr em ie r was ne ve r po li ti cal ly acti ve . The AJ DBB was a lo cal li te racy gro up co m

pr is edof f

iv e m em be rs , andth atgro up no lo ng er ex is ts . The im m ig rat io n ju dg e d idno t s ee wh y Mo m pr em ie r co ul d n otrel oc at e to an ot he r areawher e “ hi s l im it edin vo lv em en t i n t hi s n ei gh bo rh oo d l it erac y gro up wou ldno t ha ve be enkn own .” He fu rth er d idno t s ee wh y any on e wou ldbe in te res te d i n t he factth atMo m

pr em ie r m ay

ha ve be enin vo lv edin bo y co tt in g an e le ct io n o ve r fi ve y ears ag o o r so m eh ow b een in vo lv edina fai le d c oup i n 2 00 1. Mo m pr em ie r arg ue s t ha t ev enif c on di ti on s i n Hai ti ha ve ch an ge d t o n eg at e th e p res um edwell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on , Mo m pr em ie r sh ou ldst il l qu al ify for “ hu m an it ari anasylum ” b as edof t he sev eri ty of hi s p as t p ers ecu ti on , 10pa rti cu la rly the m ur de r of hi s fa th er. Hum an it ari anasylu m is affo rd edon a di sc ret io na ry

ba si s i f th e ap pl ic an t h as de m on st rat ed“ co m pe ll in g re as on s fo r be in g u nwi ll in g o r un ab le to return t o t he co un try aris in g o utof the sev eri ty of th e pa stpe rs ecu ti on ,” 8 C .F.R. § 1 20 8.1 3( b) (1 )(i ii )(A)– (B). Th e BIA h as in te rp ret ed th is form of r el ie f to requi re an ap pl ic an t fi rs t t o s ho w “ se ve re h arm ” an d

“ lo ng -la st in g e ffec ts .” See I n re N-M-A, 2 2 I & N Dec. 31 2, 3 26 (BIA 1 99 8) ; s ee al so Maz ari eg os , 24 1 F .3dat 1 32 7 n .4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (ex pl ai ni ng th atan ag en cy 's i nt erp ret at io n o f it s o wn re gu la ti on s i s en ti tl edto “ gr eatde fere nc e,” an d th at“ [t]he de gr ee o f de fere nc e is esp eci al ly greatin th e fi el d o f imm ig rat io n” ). Howev er, as th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e n ot ed , Mo m pr em ie r of

fere d o nl y

“pu re[] sp ecu la ti on ” th athi s fa th er h adbe enm ur de redby L av al as , he d idno t es tabl is h a co nn ect io n b etweenhi m se lf a ndth e p ers ecu ti onhi s fa th er p ers on al ly suf fere d, an d fu rth er the de ath c ert ifi cat e co nt rad ic te d h is tes ti m on y reg ard in g t he cir cu m st an ces su rro un di ng hi s fa th er’s d eat h. Th us , bas edon th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e’s fi nd in gs , Mo m pr em ie r fai le d t o s ho w eit he r ex tre m e p as t p ers ecu ti on or c om pe ll in g re as on s why hum an it ari anasylu m was warran te d i n t hi s ca se . See 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .13 (a), (b )(1 )(i ii )(A)– (B). Bec au se Mo m

pr em ie r’s cl ai m

forasylu m

fai ls , hi s cl ai m

for withh ol di ng of rem ov al ne ces sa ril y

fai ls . The s ta nd ardforasylu m is les s s tri ng en t tha n t ha t fo r 11withh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 82 , 12 88 n.4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ho ld in g t ha t a f ai lu re t o e st ab li sh a cl ai m of a sylum

on th e m eri ts ne ces sa ril y

cau se s a c la im

forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al to fai l).

II . Mo m pr em ie r ne xtco nt en ds th atth e BIA erredby refus in g t o c on si de r hi s ou t-o f-t im e b rie f. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o c on si de r anou t-o f-t im e br ie f fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .3(c )(1 ). The B IA ab us es it s di sc ret io n b y

act in g a rb it rari ly or cap ric io us ly. Ali v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 43 F.3d 80 4, 8 08 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The B IA di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to co ns id er the ou t-o f-t im e b rie f be cau se itm ai le d n ot ic e o f th e b rie fin g s ch edul e to Mo m pr em ie r atth e ad dr es s o f rec or d, an d t he re was no in di cat io n t ha t the BIA rece iv eda ch an ge of a dd res s fo rm . Mo m pr em ie r fu rth er co nt en ds th atth e BIA’s ref us al to co ns id er h is ou t-o fti m e b rie f vi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts . W e rev ie w de n ov o c on st itut io na l ch al le ng es . Lon y em

v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 3 52 F.3d13 38 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )

“ [T]here i s n o c on st itut io na ll y pro te ct edrig htto di sc ret io nary rel ie f.” See Zafar v . U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 61 F.3d13 57 , 13 67 (11 thCir . 20 06 ), pe ti ti on for reh eari ng en ba nc de ni ed , 47 3 F .3d13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th atimm ig rat io n ju dg es di d
12no t v io la te ali en s’ du e p ro ces s ri gh ts by notco nt inui ng th ei r rem ov al pro ceed in gs

lo ng en ou gh forth em

to m eetall ne ces sa ry

requi rem en ts forad

jus tm en t o f st atus ). Add it io na ll y , to sh ow a d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s, an ali enm us t es tabl is h tha t the as se rte d e rro r cau se d s ub st an ti al pre jud ic e. Mo m

pr em ie r arg ue s t ha t “ [b ]y fai li ng to co ns id er the App el la nt ’s arg um en ts , anddi sm is si ng th e in st an t ad m in is tra ti ve ap pe al ‘ witho utop in io n’ th e App el la ntsu ffer edpre jud ic e.” Des pi te th is ass ert io n, Mo m pr em ie r ha s n otpre se nt edan y ex am pl es of p reju di ce re su lt in g fr om th e de ni al of h is m ot io n t o s ub m itanou t-o f-t im e b rie f. Add it io na ll y , we hav e pr ev io us ly hel d tha t “ no en ti tl em en t t o aful l o pi ni onby the BIA ex is ts .” Lon y em v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 3 52 F.3dat 1 24 2. PETI TI ON DENI ED . 2

Thi s ca se was o rig in al ly sch edul edforora l ar gu m en t, b utonm ot io n o f 2 pe ti ti on er’s co un se l an d p ur su an t t o 1 1th C ir.R .34 -3 (f) i t h as be ende ci de d o n t he br ie fs an d re co rd . 13