NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 09a0711n. 06 N o. 08- 4260 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
NAT AL J A S T E I NB E RG A, P eti ti o n er,
v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , JR ., A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls

/ B efore: M A R T IN , G U Y , an d M cK E A G U E , C i rcu i t Jud ges. P E R C U R I A M. Pe t i t i o n e r Nat a l j a St e i n b e r g a s e e k s r e v i e w o f a d e c i s i o n b y t he B o ard of I m m i grat i on A pp eal s (B IA ) affirm i ng t he I m m i grat i on Judg e’s (I J’ s) decis i o n to deny her appl i cat i ons for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of re m oval , and re l i ef under t he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e (C A T ). Pet i t i onerchal l enges t he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on, t he
r el i ance on a l ack of corr obor at i on, and t he det er m i nat i on t hatpet i t i onerfai l ed t o m ake the
nece s s arys how i ng for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , orr el i ef unde rt he C A T
. Pet i t i oner
a lso a rg u e s th a t h e r d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io late d b y th e e x c lu sio n o f late -f iled e x h ib its t hats he ar gues coul d s uppor ta cl ai m forhum ani t ar i an as y l um . Fi ndi ng tha ts ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s deci s i ons , and r ej ecti n g t he due pr oces s cl ai m , w e denyt he p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.No. 08-4260 2 I. N at alja S t ei nb erga, a nati ve an d cit i zen o f L at via, arr i ved i n the U nit ed S t at es as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t ori n February2004, butbeca m e pr egnantand over s t ay ed hervi s a w i t hout
a u th o riz a tio n w h e n it e x p ire d in A u g u st 20 0 4
. P e tit io n e r file d a n a p p lica tio n f o r as y lu m in J anuary2005, and gave bi r t h t o her s on Saava, a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, i n February2005. H er appl i cat i on foras y l um w as not gr ant ed, and r emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e comm ence d w i t h t he fi l i ng of a N ot i ce t o A ppeari n A pr i l 2005. Pet i t i one rc o n c e d e d r e mov a b i l i t ya ta p r e l i mi n a r yh e a r i n g i n Nov e mbe r 2005, and
s ubm i t t ed a s uppl ement al as y l um appl i cat i on at a hear i ng i n M ay2006. Pet i t i onerw as t he onl yw i t nes s att he mer i t s hear i ng conduct ed on J une 19, 2007, aft erw hi ch the I J r ender ed
an or al deci s i on deny i ng pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i ons for r el i ef. T he I J al s o deni ed the mot i on t o acc epta num ber of l at e- fi l ed exhi bi t s . Pet i t i oner fi l ed a t i m el y not i ce of appea l w i t h t he B IA , w h ic h w a s d is m is s e d o n S e p te m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 8
. T he B I A found no cl earerr ori n t he I J ’ s adver s e c r e d i bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on, emphasi zed t h e l a c k o f c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e e v e n t s a n d p e t i t i o n e r ’ s J e w i s h e t h n i c i t y, and found no err or i n t he exc l us i on of t he l at e- fi l ed evi dence beca us e none of i tw as new or pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e. A bs ent cr edi bl e t es t i m ony , t he B I A concl uded thatpet i t i onerfai l ed to m ee t her b u rde n o f p roo f f o r asy lum o r w ith h o lding o f re m o v a l. In ad d it ion , the B IA found t hat t h e r e c o r d d i d n o t i n d i c a t e a c l e a r p r o b a b i l i t y o f t o r tu r e a t t h e i n s t i g a t i o n o f , or
w i t h t he cons entoracqui es cenc e of Lat vi an governm ent al offi ci al s . Pet i t i oners eeks r evi ewNo. 08-4260 3

Petition er filed a nu mber of exh ibits with t h e B I A th at were alrea dy part o f the adm ini strative 1 r e c o r d, i nc l udi ng s e v e r a l art i c l e s f r o m the Uni o n o f

C o unc i l s f

o r Je ws i n the Fo rme r

So v i e tUni o n and the State Departmen t Coun try Reports for 20 03 . (Exh ibits B to R.) Also inclu ded were the exh ibits rejectedby the I J, whi c h w e r e ( 1) a 2007 l e tt e r f r o m a Ra b b i i n the Uni t e d St at e s att e s t i ng thatp e t i t i o ne r i s Je wi s h; and (2) records of OaklandC ou nty’s assessment of p etitioner’s son Saava at 18 mon ths reflectin g “areas of concern ” in development of lan guage, self-h elp, coping beh aviors, an d “ relationsh ips to person s, emotions, andfeeling states. ” Fin ally , p etitioner in clud ed two n ew exh ibits that were not proffered to th e I J ; those wer e co rr ob or at ings tate ment s pr ep ar ed b y p et it io ner ’s p ar ents a ft er the me ri ts heari ng was hel d. ( Exhibi ts Y andZ. ) o f th e B IA ’s f

in a l o rd e r d ism iss in g h e r a p p e a l. 1 II. W e revi ew t he B IA ’s leg a l d e term i nati on s de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs for
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Mo sta fa v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 5 F .3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 4 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e w ill uphol d t he fi ndi ngs “as l ong as t hey ar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” Id
. (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). W hen, as her e, t he B I A adopt s t he I J ’ s deci s i on and makes addit ion al comm ent s and fi ndi ngs , w e di r ect l yr evi ew t he dec i s i on of t he I J w hi l e cons i der i ng t he B I A ’ s addi t i onal d e te rm in a tio n s . G i l ajv. G onz al es , 408 F. 3d 275, 282- 83 ( 6 th C ir
. 2 0 05)
. W e w i l l not
re v e rse th e B I A ’s d e c isio n “ u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to
co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). T o qual i fyfor as y l um , an appl i cant m us t es t abl i s h “a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on
on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ar s oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on” i f he w er e t o r etur n t o hi s countr y of ori gi n. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A )
. T o qual i fy forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cant ’ s bur den i s hi gher

— s he mustdemonst r at e a “ cl ear pr obabi l i t yof per s ecut i on. ” Gu mb o lv . I NS , 8 1 5 F. 2d 406, 411 ( 6t h C i r . 1987) ( quot at i on
m a rk s o m itt e d ). T o q u a lifyf o r C A T re lief

, an a p p lica n t m u st s h o w “ th a t itis m o re lik e lyNo. 08-4260 4

Th e REA L ID Act of 20 05 , Pub.L. 10 9-1 3, 11 9 S tat. 231 , am e n d ed th e I NA , 8 U.S.C. § 2 1158 (b )( 1)(B) (i ii ), to p ro vi de that a tr ie r of f act may make ac re dib il ity

det erminati on “witho ut r eg ar d to whether an inco nsis te ncy , inac cur ac y , or fa ls eho od go es to the heart of the ap pl ic ant’ s cl ai m. ” This amend men t is inapplicab le here beca use it does not apply

to applicatio ns for re l ief andpro tection from removal filed befo re May 11 , 200 5. REA L ID Act § 1 01 (h)( 2). See El-M ou ssa v. Holder , 56 9 F
. 3d 250 (6th Ci r. 2009) (a

pp lyingnew st andar d o f re vi ew)
. th a n n o t th a t h e o r s h e w o u ld b e to r t u r e d i f r e m o v e d to th e p ro p o s e d c o u n tr yo f re m o v a l.” 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 6 (c)(2). A n appl i cant ’ s cr edi bl e t es t i m ony“maybe s uffi ci en t t o s us t ai n t he bur den of pr oof wi t h o u t c o r r o b o r a t i o n . ” 8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 0 8
. 1 3 ( a )
. Un d e rt h e s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s c l a i m, t he I J ’ s “adve r s e cr edi bi l i t y det er m i nat i on ‘ m us t be bas ed on i s s ues thatgo t o t he hea r tof t he appl i cant ’ s cl ai m . ’ ” Shkabar i v. G onz al es , 427 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 6t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng S y lla
v . I NS , 388 F. 3d 924, 926 ( 6t h C i r . 2004)
. T he IJ found t hatpet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyw as not 2
cr edi bl e, r el y i ng bot h on i ncons i s t enci es and a l ack of corr obor at i on. T he I J al s o concl uded th a t ev e n if

p e tit io n e r w e re f

o u n d to b e c re d ib le, h e r te stim o n y w a s n o t su f f icie n t to d e m o n s tr a te e lig ib ility f o r a n yo f th e re lie f

s h e s o u g h t. B or n i n R i ga, L at vi a, i n 1978, pet i t i onercl ai m ed thats he s u ffer ed pas tper s ecut i on beca us e s he i s J ew i s h and R us s i an. She r el at ed how herpar ent s had t o paybr i bes t o gether i nt o t he R us s i an s chool , how ot her c hi l dr en w er e notal l ow ed t o t al k orpl ayw i t h her , and ho w t hey w ou l d cal l her nam es l i ke “ki ke” and “di rty Jew
. ” O ne L at vian bo y nam ed A rt i s,
w ho l i ved nea rher , des pi s ed herforbei ng a J ew and w oul d hum i l i at e heri n publ i c. I n 1993, w hen pet i t i oner w as 15 y ear s ol d, A r t i s beat up anotherb o y fo r ha v ing
w al ked her hom e. Pet i t i oner t ol d her m ot her , w ho appr oache d A r t i s ’ s m ot heri n a s hoppi ng cent erand t ol d her t o w at ch hers on and hi s fr i ends
. T he otherm ot herr ebuff ed her , s ay i ngNo. 08-4260 5

s he di d n o t w an t t o be s een t al ki ng t o a J ew . A few day s l at er , pet i t i onerw as outw al ki ng
w h e n sh e sa w A rtis d riv in g a c a r w ith tw o o f h is f rie n d s. T h e y a b d u c ted h e r a n d to o k h e r to
a w o o d e d a re a , w h e re A rtis ra p e d h e r w h ile th e o th e r tw o h e ld h e r. H e sa id , “I to ld y o u to k e e p y o u r m o u th s h u t. S o n o w y o u w ill g e t w h a t yo u lo o k e d f o r.” H e c a lle d h e r a “ k ik e ,” a “prost i tute, ” and sai d she b el on ged on t he st reetas a “w orki ng gir l ” for L at vians. H e al so t hr eat ened t o do i tagai n i f s he t ol d any one. Pet i t i onerdi d nott el l any one, r evea l i ng i tfort he fi r s tt i m e i n t he s t at ement i n s uppor tof heras y l um appl i cat i on. W e agr ee t hat one of t he i ncons i s t enci es i dent i fi ed byt he I J conce r ni ng t he r ape— t hat peti t i on er s aid th e ra p ist l i ved “t w o d oo rs ” aw ayand t hen sai d h e l i ved “t w o h ou ses”
aw ay
— w as not m a t eri al t o h er cl ai m . H ow ever, t he IJ foun d tw o o t her i nco nsi st encies
. Speci fi cal l y , pet i ti o n er test i fi ed thatt he r ape oc curr ed on O ct ober21, 1993, butt ol d t he
as y l um offi cer t hat i t happene d i n t he s pr i ng of 1993. A l s o, pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thats he had last see n her r api s t on t he day of t he r ape i n 1993. She change d her t es t i m ony , h o w ev er,
w h e n re m in d e d th a t sh e to ld th e a sy lu m o f f ice r th a t sh e c o n tin u e d to se e A rtis, w h o w o u ld l aug h an d tryt o b l ock her p a th, and t hat s he las tenco un t ered hi m i n 2 00 2. T hese in c o n sis ten c ies a b o u t w h e n th e ra p e o c c u rre d a n d w h e th e r p e tit io n e r la st s a w h e r ra p ist in 1 9 9 3 o r c o n tin u e d to se e a n d b e h a ra ss e d b yh im u n til 2 0 0 2 , d id g o to th e h e a rt o f h e r c laim
o f p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . T w o l at eri nci dent s w er e al s o r el i ed upon bypet i t i oner . Fi r s t , i n 2001, s he and he r
m o th e r w e r e h o m e w h e n th re e m e n th e yd id n o t k n o w e n ter e d th e h o u se , fo rc e d th e m to kneel , and bound herm ot her ’ s m out h and hands befor e ki cki ng her
. T he men cal l ed themNo. 08-4260 6

“ d irtyJe w s” a n d to ld h e r m o th e r to “ g e t aw a yb e f o r e it w a s to o late .” A f ter th e ylef

t, pet i t i oner ’ s m ot hercal l ed the pol i ce, butt he pol i ce w oul d not open a ca s e bec aus e ther e w as
n o t en o u g h e v id e n c e . P e tit io n e r te stif ied th a t h e r p a re n ts c o n tin u e d to liv e a n d w o rk in L at vi a, and herm ot herhad nots uffe r ed anyhar m s i nce the att ack i n 2001. Second, p eti t i onert es t i fi ed thatw hi l e w al ki ng hom e fr om herJ ew i s h s chool i n t he
w i nt erof 2002, t w o m en, one i n a l eat h er jack etand the otheri n pol i ce uni for m , began fo ll o w ing h er . W hen s he s t opped, one ki cked he ri n t he s t om ach. T heys ai d J ew s di d not h a v e a n yb u s i n e s s b e i n g t h e r e . P e t i t i o n e rt e s t i f i e d t h a ts h e l o s tc o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d s a w a doct or t he fol l ow i ng day , w ho t ol d her s he had a “concus s i on of t he i nt ernal or gans . ” She
w a s p re sc rib e d p a in m e d ica tio n a n d w a s to ld to sta yin b e d f o r tw o w e e k s. P e tit io n e r sa id
s he di d notr epor t the assa u ltt o t he pol i ce be caus e herpar ent s di d notbel i eve the pol i ce
w o u ld do an y thing ab o u t it
. A ck n o w ledg ing that sh e did no t h av e an y rec o rd of the d o ctor’s vi s i t , pet i t i oner expl ai ned t hat t her e w as “no s y s t em over t her e as far as m ed ical re por t s . ” In tes tify in g re g a rdi ng this a ss a u lt, h o w e v e r, p e tit io n e r d id n o t m e n tio n th a t th e a ss a u lt
w as r el at ed t o a ca racc i dentt hatpr ece ded i t . W hen r emi nded thats he had t ol d t he as y l um offi ceraboutt he ac ci dent , pet i t i oneracknow l edged thatt he otherdr i verhad w or ked fort he p o lice d e p a rtm e n t, ac c u se d h e r o f b e in g a t f

a u lt i n th e a c c id e n t, an d c a lled h e r re p e a ted ly b e f o re th e a ss a u lt in sis tin g th a t sh e tak e th e b lam e f o r th e a c c id e n t. S h e re f u se d , the a ss a u lt fol l ow ed, and a c our tcas e r el at ed t o t he ac ci dentw as notreso lved unt i l l at e i n 2003. O m i ssion of t he fa ctt hatt he as s aul tw as pr ece ded byand r el at ed t o a di s put e overa ca r
ac cidenti nvol vi ng s om eone w ho w or ked fort he pol i ce s eems c al cul at ed t o bol s t erNo. 08-4260 7

p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m o f

p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f h e rr e l i g i o n o re t h n i c i t y. A s t he B I A not ed, w hen doubt s ar i s e conc erni ng cr edi bi l i t y , “corr obor at i ng evi dence becomes par t i cul ar l yi m por t anti n m eet i ng t he al i en’ s bur den of pr oof. ” S ee Pi l i ca v. A sh c ro ft , 3 8 8 F .3 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 5 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); s ee al s o B er r i v. G onz al es , 468 F. 3d 390, 395- 96 ( 6t h C i r . 2006)
. “[E] ven w hen an a ppl i cant ’ s cr edi bi l i t yhas notbeen que s t ion ed , t he fai l ur e t o pr ovi de r eas onabl yavai l abl e co rr obor at i ng evi dence ” ca n cons t i tut e gr ounds for
c o n c lu d in g th a t a n a p p lic a n t h a s f a ile d to m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f
. Sh kab ari , 427 F. 3d at 331. T he B I A found t hatpet i t i onerhad notpr oduced cor r obor at i ng evi dence of anyof t he event s or even of her J ew i s h ethni ci t y , des pi t e t he oppor tuni t y t o do s o w hi l e i n L at vi a and t he fac t t hat s he had r egul ar cont act w i t h her par ent s i n L at vi a. E xcept forevi dence of t he
a lleg e d ra p e , w h ich p e tit io n e r sa y s s h e d id n o t tell a n y o n e a b o u t, pe tit io n e r’s f a ilu re to p ro v id e a n yc o rr o b o ra tin g e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e IJ ’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . P eti ti o n er testi fied that h er b irth ce rt ifi ca te s h o w ed that sh e w as Jew ish. W h en the IJ poi nt ed out t hat i t di d not , pet i t i oner expl ai ned t hat her par ent s had w ant ed t o s hi el d herfr om per s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found t hatpet i t i oner ’ s pas s por t , i s s ued i n 1998, di d noti ndi cat e t hat sh e is J e w ish , ev e n th o u g h th e In ter n a tio n a l R e lig io u s F re e d o m R e p o rt sta ted th a t “p rio r to 2002, r egar dl es s of t he bea r er s w i s hes al l pas s por t s l i s t ed the bea r er s ethni ci t yon t he fr ont bi o page a s L at vi an, R us s i an, orJ ew i s h. ” (Em phas i s added. ) A l s o, des pi t e know i ng t hats he p lan n e d to se e k a sy lu m in th e U n ited S tate s, p e tit io n e r d id n o t co llec t d o c u m e n ts th a t w o u ld
c o rro b o ra te h e r t e stim o n y w h ile sh e w a s in L a tv ia f o r th e las t ti m e . N o r d id p e tit io n e r o b tain
s t at ement s fr om herpar ent s cor r obor at i ng hercl ai m s u n ti l aft ert he mer i t s hear i ng w asNo. 08-4260 8

Co ntr ary t o petitioner ’ s a s s e rt i o ns , the C o untry R e p o rt s do no ts up p o rtthe c o nt e nt i o n thatthe 3 L atv i an g o v e rnm e nt inf

lic t s , i ns t i g at e s , o r

a c qui e s c e s i n the t o rtur e o f Je ws . 8 C
. F. R. § 1208
. 18( a ) ( 1) (defin ing torture to inclu de th e in tention al inflictionof pain andsufferin g “in flicted by or at the instigation of o r with the c ons ent or

a cq uies ce nce o f a pub li c of

fi ci alo r ot

her p er so n ac ti ng in an o ff

ic ia l c ap ac ity ”)
. compl et ed. T he IJ concl uded t hateven pe t i t i oner ’ s cl ai m t o be J ew i s h w as nots uppor t ed by anyobj ect i ve evi dence
. Fur t her , t he I J found t hat t he C ount r y R epor t s fr om 2003 and 2006 d id n o t s u p p o rt h e r c la im o f s o c ie ta l d is c ri m in a tio n a g a in s t J e w s in L a tv ia
. P et i t i on er t est i fi ed thatal l of h er J ew i sh fri end s had em i grat ed fr om L at via because i t w as s o di ffi cul t t o be J ew i s h t her e. Pet i t i onerdi d notw antt o r etur n t o L at vi a, s ay i ng t hat
s he fe ar ed for h er li fe and t he l i ves of herpar ent s and s on i f s he r etur ned. T he evi dence sh o w e d th a t p e tit io n e r g ra d u a ted w ith a d e g re e in m a n a g e m e n t th e o ryf ro m th e U n iv e rsity
o f L a t v i a i n 2 0 0 3 , a n d t r a v e l e d t o a n u m b e ro f o t h e rc o u n t r i e s i n h e rw o r k f o rt h e u n i v e r s i t y. Pet i t i oner ’ s par ent s cont i nued t o l ive i n L at vi a w i t houtfur t heri nci dent , and pet i t i oner
re tu rn e d to L a tv ia to p u t h e r a f f a ir s in o rd e r. W e fi nd t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he adve r s e cr edi b il i t ydet er m i nat i on, as
w e ll a s th e fi nd i ng t hat even if cr edibl e peti t i on er’ s t est i m on yfai l ed to dem on strat e past per s ecut i on, ora r eas onabl e fe arof futur e per s ecut i on, on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound as is re q u ire d to e sta b lish e lig ib ili ty f o r as y lu m . A s a re su lt, p e tit io n e r a lso c a n n o t d e m o n stra te t h e “ c l e a rp r o b a b i l i t yo f p e r s e c u t i o n ” r e q u i r e d f o rwi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l u n d e rt h e I NA. S in g h v . A sh c ro

ft , 398 F. 3d 396, 401 ( 6t h C i r . 2005)
. N or does t he r ecor d compel a fi ndi ng t hatpet i t i onerw oul d “more l i kel yt han not ” be s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e i f r emoved t o L at vi a, as
w o u ld b e re q u ir e d to o b ta in re lie f u n d e r th e C A T
. M apouya v. G onz al es , 487 F. 3d 396, 418 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). 3No. 08-4260 9 III . Fi nal l y , pet i t i oner cont ends t hat t he IJ ’ s r ej ect i on of t he l at e- fi l ed exhi bi t s deni ed her du e process r i gh tt o fo rm ulat e a n d argue a clai m for hu m anit ari an asy l um . A du e process
v io latio n re su lts f

ro m th e e x c lu sio n o f

e v id e n c e w h e n “ th e p ro c e e d in g w a s s o f u n d a m e n tally unfai rt hatt he al i en w as pr event ed fro m rea s onabl ypr es ent i ng hi s cas e. ” H as s an v. G onz al es , 4 0 3 F
. 3 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 6 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ) (intern al q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). C l ai m s of due pr oces s vi ol at i ons i n r emoval hear i ngs ar e r evi ew ed de novo
. Mi khai l evi t ch
v . I NS , 1 4 6 F
. 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 9 1 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). P e tit io n e r d o e s n o t d isp u te, a n d th e re c o rd is c le a r , th a t th e p ro f f e re d d o c u m e n ts
co n ce rnin g the e v alua ti o n o f p eti ti o n er’s m ino r son w ere n o t f il ed m o re than 1 4 d ay s b ef o re th e m e rits h e a rin g a s re q u ire d b y th e lo c a l ru les
. N o r i s the re a n yc laim th a t th e se e x h ib its qual i fi ed forexce pt i on t o t he 14-da y fi l i ng rul e on t he grounds t hat t he evi dence w as new or pr evi ous l yunat t ai nabl e. A l l document s t o be consi der ed m us tbe fi l ed w i t h t he i m m i gr at i on
cour t , and t he I J m ays eta t i m e fr ame forfi l i ng anyappl i cat i ons , r el at ed document s , and
r es pons es . 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 31( a) and ( c)
. I f a doc um enti s notfi l ed w i t hi n t hi s t i m e fr ame, th e o p p o rt u n ity to d o s o is w a iv e d
. Id . R e je c tio n o f

th e se d o c u m e n ts c o n sis ten t w ith
e s ta b lis h e d tim e lim its d id n o t v io la te p e titio n e r’ s d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . See , e. g. , H as s an , 403 F
. 3 d at 4 3 5 -36 (de n y ing d u e pro ce ss cl aim b ase d o n ex clus ion o f u n ti m elyp rof fe red let ter). T he p et i t i on for r eview i s DENI ED
.