NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 11a0865n.06
Case No. 09- 3718
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA ANA TOLYE VNA SOVA; NATALYA M. Z VONAREVA,

P etitioner s,

v.
ERIC H. HOL DER, JR., Att orney G eneral, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR REVIEW F ROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF IMMIG RATION AP P EALS

BEFORE: BATCHELDER Chief Judge; SIL ER and COLE, Circuit Jud ges.
ALICE M. BATCH E L DE R, Chief Judge. Petitioner Taty ana Antoly evna Sova (“Taty ana” ) seeks revie w of the May 13, 2009, order of the Boa rd of I mmigra tion Appea ls (“B I A”)
aff irming the order of the I mmigra tion J udg e (“I J ”) finding Taty ana remova ble and deny ing her

reque st for a hardship waiver under 8 U.S. C

. § 1186a(c )(4)

. I n this petition for revie w, Taty ana primarily alleg es proc edura l error s. We DISMISS her pe tition for review

. I. Taty ana is a native and citiz en o f Russia. She met her now-e x -husband, Walter Sova (“Walter” ), a United States citizen, at a social g ather ing during his visit to Russia around J une 1995. They maintained contac t with eac h other, and Walter visited her ag ain in Dec ember 1995. Around April 1996, Walter proposed to Taty ana over the phone. On J uly 13, 1996, Taty ana, along with herN o
. 0 9

- 3 7 1 8 , S o v a v

. H o l d e r

daug hter, Nataly a Z vonare va (“N ataly a”) , enter ed the United States on a K-1 fianc ée visa. Walter 1 and Taty an a we re marrie d on J uly 18, 1996. Shortly there afte r, and on the basis of t his marria g e, Taty ana had her visa status adjusted to that of a conditional perma nen t resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a )(1)

. The marria g e did not last. Walter filed for divorce , and on November 13, 1997, the marria g e

wa s j u d i cially terminated in Michig an state court. On J uly 29, 1998, Taty ana filed a petition to

remove conditions from her perma nent reside n t s t at u s
. S

ee id. § 1186a(c ). Taty ana applied for a hardship wa iver unde r § 1186a( c)( 4).
On Aug ust 3, 1999, the I mmigra tion and Natu r a li za ti o n Service (“I

NS”) interviewe d Taty ana
under oath reg arding her hardship-w aiver petition. I n J anuar y , J uly , and October 2003, I NS and then
the Depa rtment of Homeland Security (“D HS”) informed Taty ana via letter that it planned to deny 2
her petition to remove the condition on her status beca use she had failed to show that her marria g e

was e ntere d into in good fa ith.
On October 2, 2003, DHS denied Taty ana’ s petition to remove the condition and terminated
her status. On October 7, 2003, DHS serve d Taty ana with a notice to appea r, char g ing her with being remova

ble as an alien whose conditional perma nent resident status was terminated, id. § 1227(a) (1)( D)(i) , and as an alien who g ained entry into the United States on the basis of a fra udulent
marria g e, id. § 1227 (a )( 1 )( G)(i). Taty ana denied the char g es of remova bility and asked the I J to

W h i l e N a t a l y a w a s a p a r t y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e I J a n d B I A , T a t y a n a ’ s b r i e f b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t i n f

o r m s 1

u s t h a t N a t a l y a h a s s i n c e b e c o m e e l i g i b l e f o r a g r e e n c a r d a n d w a s d i s m i s s e d a s a p a r t y b y t h e B I A o n D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 9

.
O n M a r c h 1 , 2 0 0 3 , I N S c e a s e d t o e x i s t a s a n a g e n c y w h e n m o s t o f i t s p o w e r s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w e r e

2
t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e n e w l y - c r e a t e d D H S

. -2-N o
. 0 9

- 3 7 1 8 , S o v a v

. H o l d e r

revie w her reque st for a hardship waiver based on her claim that she enter ed into t he marria g e in

g ood faith.
On November 15, 2006, the I J held a hear ing. Taty ana testified that she had enter ed into the
marria g e in g ood faith and that the marria g e bore all the indicia of a reg ular, valid marria g e. She also
submitt ed a nota

rized letter from Walter, da ted J uly 20, 1998, in which Walter took responsibility
for the divorce , exp l ained that the marria g e was enter ed into in g ood faith, and pleade d with
authorities to let Taty ana stay in the country

. DHS submitt ed evidenc e that included a statement that
Walter provided to I

NS, r etra cting his July 1998 letter. I n it, he stated that he had only written the

J uly 1998 letter be cause Taty ana promised to rema rry him if he did. He also included a copy of a
letter he had written in Fe bruar y 1999 to Taty ana’ s mother in Russia explaining the divorce and other
details of their failed rela tionship. On Dec ember 15, 2006, the I J denied Taty ana’ s waiver reque st,
sustained the char g es of remova bility , and o rd ere d her and Nataly a remove d to Russia. The I J
conclude d that Taty ana failed to car ry her burden of showing that her marria g e was enter ed into in

g ood faith. The I J noted a lac k of cor robora ting doc umentary

evidenc e. Taty ana appea led to the BI A the denial of her g ood faith waiver

. She also moved for rema nd

o n the basis of i neff

ective assistance of counsel. On M ay 18, 2009, the BI A di smisse d T at y an a’ s
appea l and denied the motion to remand. Taty ana f iled this petiti on for r eview.

II.
Under 8 U. S

. C

. § 1186a, an alien who attains conditional perma nent resident status by

marry ing a United States citizen must file a joint petition with her spouse to remove the “conditional
basis” of her status. Id. § 1186a(c )(1)

. Such an alien may , howeve r, seek a waiver o f the joint-

-3-N o
. 0 9

- 3 7 1 8 , S o v a v

. H o l d e r

petition filing require ment by showing that “the qualify ing marria g e was enter ed into in g ood faith by the alien spouse, but the qualify ing ma rriag e has be en ter

minated (other

than throug h the dea th
of the s p o u s e) and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the [j oint-petition filing require ments].” Id. § 1186a(c )(4) (B ). Gra nt of the waiver remove s the condition on the perma nent
resident status. Id. § 1186a(c )(4)

. The decision to g rant a waiver is within “the Attorney Gene ral’s
discretion.” Id.
Where the BI A adopts the I J ’s decision and supplements that decision with its own comments, as in this c ase, we revie w both the BI A’s and the I J ’s opinions. See G ilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F. 3 d 2 7 5, 283 (6th Cir. 2005) (per curia m). Be cause the decision conce rning the g ood faith
waiver is entrusted to the Attorney Gene ral’s discretion, we revie w the denial of the waiver only for purely leg al err ors. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( B) ; Billeke- Tolosa v. Ashcroft , 385 F.3d 708, 711 (6th
Cir. 2 0 0 4 ). We revie w de novo such questions of l aw. Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). Taty ana arg ues that the I J err ed by allowing DHS to prese nt letters from her ex-h u s b and
Walter without affor ding he r an oppor tunity to cross-e x amine him at the hearing

. She arg ues t hat
this failure constituted a violation of her reg ulatory , statutory , and constitutional rig hts. The rec ord
ref lects that DHS reque sted that the I J issue a subpoena to two differ ent addre sses to compel Walter

to appea r to testify

. One subpoena was returne d marke d by the postal service as “Unc laimed,” while
the other was returne d marke d “F orwa rding Time Ex pired.” Taty ana, howeve r, never reque sted that
the I J i s s u e a s u b p oena for Walter. Thoug h Walter did not testify for either party , both parties
submitt ed conf

licting letter s from him, descr ibed above

.

-4-N o
. 0 9

- 3 7 1 8 , S o v a v

. H o l d e r

Taty ana’ s reg

ulatory claim fails. The I J h as “e x clus ive jurisdiction to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses . . . . An I mmigra tion J udg e may issue a subpoena upon his
or her own volition or upon application of the S ervic e or the alien.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.35(b)( 1). I f
the I J is unsucce ssful in obtaining the appea ranc e of the wit ness, i t is told to en l i s t t h e help of t he district attorney :
I f a witnes s n eglec ts or ref uses to appea

r and testify as direc ted by the subpoena
serve d upon him or her in acc ordanc e with the provision s of this section, the I mmigra tion J udg e issuing the subpoena shall reque st the United States Attorney for the district in which the subpoena was issued to repor t such neg lect or ref

usal to the United States District Court and to reque st such court to issue an order requiring the witness to appea

r and te stify

. . . . Id. § 1003.35(b)( 6).
As this court has rec og nized, “[i] t is an elementa l principle of administrative law t hat

ag encie s are bound to follow their own reg ulations.” W ilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 378 F.3d 541,
545 (6th Cir. 2004). Her e, howeve r, beca use Taty ana did not comply with the reg ulation she is not
entitled to the benef

its of it. The reg ulation require s that the party apply ing for the subpoena “state
in w riting or at the proce eding , what he or she expects to pr ove by such witnesses . . . and to show
aff irmatively that he or she has made diligent eff ort, without succe ss, to produce the same.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.35(b)( 2). Her e, it was the Gover nment that applied for the subpoena, not Taty ana. There is

no evidenc e in the rec ord that Taty ana s u b m i t t ed any such application or made such showing s.
Whil e the enfor ceme nt provision is worde d in mandatory terms, it applies only to subpoenas serve d

upon the witness “in acc ordanc e with the provisions of this section.” Id. § 1003.35(b)( 6). Taty ana

cannot claim the benef

its of the subpoena enfor ceme nt reg ulation beca use she did not herse lf comply

-5-N o
. 0 9

- 3 7 1 8 , S o v a v

. H o l d e r

with the reg ulation. See Stolaj v. Holder , 577 F.3d 651, 659 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that I J did not
abuse his discretion when he denied petitioner’s reque st for a subpoena, wher e the petitioner did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.35(b)( 2)). Cases from other jurisdictions have g rante d relief for an I J ’s
failure to allow or enfor ce a subpoena, but only when the petitioner proper ly applied for a subpoena
under 8 C.F. R

. § 1003.35(b). See Malave v. Holder , 610 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir. 2010) (g ranting
relief wher e I J denied application for subpoena even though petitioner had com p l i ed with

reg ulations); Ramos de Rojas v. Gonzales , No. 04-74682, 2007 WL 705832, at *1–2 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2007) (mem.) (g ranting relief wher e I J did not proper ly enfor ce a subpoena g rante d upon the alien petitioner’s prope r applica tion). Taty ana’ s statutory claim also fails. Section 1229a states that in remova l proce eding s, “the
alien shall have a rea sonable opportunity

. . . to cross-e x amine witnesses p re s en t ed by the
Gover nment.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (4)( B)

. Taty ana claims that she was denied a “re asonable opportunity ” to cross-e x amine Walter beca use DHS prese nted letters from Walter and the I J did not
do enoug h to se cure Walter’s prese nce at the hear ing. I n Dallo v. INS , 765 F.2d 581, 586 (6th Cir. 1985), the g overnme nt issued three subpoenas to a par ticular witness, a ll of which failed to se cure
the witness’s prese nce to testify

. T h e court held that three attempts constituted “re asonable eff ort[s] ” by the g overn m en t. Id. Under those circ umstances, the court held it was permissible for the

g ov er n m en t to prese nt hear say instead of live testimony subject to cross-e x amination. Id. We
conclude that the attempts to s ubpoena Walter at two differ ent addre sses wer e rea sonable eff orts, and
the I J did not violate Taty ana’ s statutory rig ht to a “rea sonab l e o p p ortunity

. . . to cross-e x amine”
Walter.

-6-N o
. 0 9

- 3 7 1 8 , S o v a v

. H o l d e r

Taty ana’ s claim that her due proce ss rig ht to cross-e x amine a witness was violated also fails
beca use there is no such constitutional rig ht in an immigra tion proce eding seeking discretionar y
relief

. The hear ing was not a criminal proce eding , so the Confrontation Clause does not apply

. See Stolaj , 577 F.3d at 659. Any rig ht to cross-e x amine must be found in the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause. Id. But t h er e i s no liberty interest in an immigra tion proce eding seeking
discretionar

y relief , and where the re is no life, liber ty , or prope rty

interest, ther e is no due process
protec tion. See Patel v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 216, 220 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Jebe ili v. Holder , 421 F. App’ x 547, 549 (6th Cir. 2011) (a pply ing r ule in discretionar

y waiver context). 3 Taty ana also arg ues that the BI A eng ag ed in improper fac t finding when it cited portions of
the letters Walter se nt to I NS/DHS at various times. Whil e the BI A m ay not eng ag e in additional
fac t finding , see In re Adamiak , 23 I

. & N. Dec

. 878, 880 (B I A 2006), it is clea r that the BI A did not

eng ag e in such fac t finding here

. The BI A summarized the evidenc e in the rec ord and conclude d that

t h e I J ’s decision was not clea rly err oneous. The BI A discussed the letters from Walter and
observe d—just as the I J did—that Taty ana did not pre sent sufficie nt corrobor ating evidenc e. The

BI A did not settle any

unresolved f

actua l disputes.

L astly , Taty ana arg ues that her counsel was ineffe ctive. Be cause immigra tion pr ocee dings

are not criminal in nature , any rig ht to eff ective assistance of counsel rests only on the Due Process
Clause. Denk

o v. INS , 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003). But as we have alre ady observe d, we have

T a t y a n a m a y a l s o b e a r g u i n g t h a t h e r d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s w e r e a l s o v i o l a t e d w h e n t h e a g e n c y f a i l e d t o f o l l o w 3 i t s o w n r e g u l a t i o n
. W e n o t e d a b o v e t h a t t h e a g e n c y d i d n o t v i o l a t e i t s o w n r e g u l a t i o n
. B u t e v e n i f i t h a d , w h i l e “ [ a ] n a g e n c y ’ s f

a i l u r e t o f

o l l o w i t s o w n r e g u l a t i o n s ‘ t e n d s t o c a u s e u n j u s t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d d e n y a d e q u a t e n o t i c e ’ a n d
c o n s e q u e n t l y m a y r e s u l t i n a v i o l a t i o n o f a n i n d i v i d u a l ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o d u e p r o c e s s , ” W i l s o n , 3 7 8 F

. 3 d a t 5 4 5 ( q u o t i n g S a m e e n a , I

n c

. v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s A i r F o r c e , 1 4 7 F

. 3 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 3 ( 9 t h C i r
. 1 9 9 8 ) ) , w e a r e u n a w a r e o f a n y c a s e t h a t s t a t e s t h a t e v e r

y v i o l a t i o n o f a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n e q u a l s a d u e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n
. -7-N o
. 0 9

- 3 7 1 8 , S o v a v

. H o l d e r

held that there is no rig ht to due proce ss in a discretionar y hear ing. Wit hout due proce ss rig hts, there

can be no rig ht to eff

ective assistance of counsel. See, e.g. , Reda v. Mukase y , 294 F. App’x 182, 185 (6th Cir. 2008) (deny

ing petitioner’s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel in discretionar y relief
hear ing)

. 4

III.
For these re asons we DISMISS the petition for re view.

T a t y a n a ’ s c o u n s e l s u g g e s t e d a t o r a l a r g u m e n t f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , a n d a g a i n i n a R u l e 2 8 ( j ) l e t t e r , t h a t w e r e m a n d 4
t h e c a s e t o t h e B I A b e c a u s e t h e B I A a p p l i e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f M a t t e r o f C o m p e a n , 2 4 I & N D e c
. 7 1 0 ( B I A 2 0 0 9 ) , i n d e c i d i n g T a t y a n a ’ s m o t i o n t o r e m a n d f o r i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l

. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n , t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l v a c a t e d t h e o p i n i o n i n C o m p e a n a n d i n s t r u c t e d t h a t D H S s h o u l d u s e t h e o l d s t a n d a r d o f M a t t e r o f L o z a d a , 1 9 I & N D e c
. 6 3 7 ( B I A 1 9 8 8 )

. S e e I n r e C o m p e a n , 2 5 I & N D e c
. 1 , 3 ( B I A 2 0 0 9 )

. R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e m e r i t s o f t h i s a r g u m e n t , t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n w h y t h i s a r g u m e n t c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n r a i s e d b y c o u n s e l e a r l i e r
. I t i s d e e m e d w a i v e d

. S e e V a u g h n v

. L a w r e n c e b u r

g P o w e r S

y s

. , 2 6 9 F

. 3 d 7 0 3 , 7 1 4 ( 6 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 1 )

.

-8-