NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1481

___________ M AR I O R OL DAN, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 079- 697- 526) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M arg are t R eich en b erg

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay12, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay17, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M ar i o R ol dan pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) or derof r emoval . T he A t t orneyG ener al has fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. For2

the r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l gr antthe A t t orneyG ener al ’ s m ot i on and di s m i s s the p e tit io n f o r re v iew in p a rt a n d d e n yit i n p a rt. Pet i t i oner , M ar i o R ol dan, i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n J une 1998 and ove r s t ay ed hi s vi s a. O n A pr i l 23, 2001, he mar r i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen w ho pet i t i oned for , and r ece i ved, condi t i onal perm anentr es i dent s t atus forherhus band. I n J une 2003, R ol dan fi l ed fordi vor ce. A ft erthe fi nal j udgm ent of di vor ce w as ent er ed i n O ct ober2003, he fi l ed a r eques tfora di s cr et i onaryw ai verof the r equi r ementt o fi l e a j oi ntpet i t i on t o r emove t he condi t i onal bas i s of hi s perm anent re sid e n t sta tu s u n d e r IN A § 2 1 6 (c )(4 )(B ). S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (c )(4 )(B ). H is appl i cat i on w as deni ed, and hi s condi t i onal perm anentr es i dents t atus w as t erm i nat ed on J une 10, 2006. R ol dan w as then pl ace d i nt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs , atw hi ch t i m e he r enew ed hi s w ai verappl i cat i on. T he I J deni ed hi s appl i cat i on, concl udi ng thatR ol dan h a d f a ile d to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t h is m a rr ia g e w a s e n te re d in to in g o o d f a ith . T he B I A aff

i r m ed and di s m i s s ed hi s appea l . A ft erR ol dan t i m el yfi l ed a pe t i t i on for r evi ew , the part i es w er e as ked t o addr es s thi s C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al of the w ai verpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) . I n r es pons e, the A t t orneyG ener al m oved t o di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. R ol dan r ai s es tw o i s s ues on appea l : fi r s t , thatthe I J vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth A m endment r i ghtt o a ful l and fa i rhear i ng byfai l i ng t o actas a neutr al fac t fi nder , fai l i ng t o cons i der a ll rele v a n t tes tim o n y , an d se tti n g a h o stile to n e ; an d se c o n d , tha t th e B IA a b u se d its3

di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o r emand t he mat t ert o the I J w i th i ns truct i ons t o gr antthe r eques t ed w ai ver . I n s uppor tof the l att ercl ai m , R ol dan ar gues thathe s ubm i t t ed s uffi ci ent e v id e n c e to d e m o n stra te a b o n a f id e m a rital re latio n sh ip a n d th a t th e IJ th e re f o re e rre d in d en y ing h is r eq u est fo r a w aive r. W e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th e q u e stio n w h e th e r th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d ism iss in g R o ld a n ’s a p p e a l o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e IJ p ro p e rlyd e n ied h is r eques tfora di s cr et i onaryw ai ver . See U r ena- T avar ez v. A s hcr oft , 367 F. 3d 154, 161 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng that , under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , the C our tm aynotr evi ew t he di s cr et i onarydeni al of a w ai verpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1186a( c) ( 4) ) . H ow ever , as the A t t orneyG ener al r ecogni zes , w e r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on overcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s or qu est i on s of l aw pu rs uan tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2) (D ). S ee S uk w anp utr a v. G on zal es, 434 F. 3d 627, 634 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thatcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forr evi ew el ude the j ur i s di ct i on- s tr i ppi ng pr ovi s i ons of the I N A ) . T hus , w e maycons i der w hetherR ol dan’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s w as vi ol at ed bythe I J ’ s conductof hi s hear i ng. R ol dan cl ai m s thatbyr epea t edl yi nt errupt i ng hi s couns el and ques t i oni ng R ol dan h erse lf, the IJ c rea ted a n inti m idating en v ir o n m en t. H e a lso m aintains that the IJ demeaned R ol dan and a ct ed i n a di s par agi ng m annert ow ar ds hi m . T aken a s a w hol e, R ol dan cont ends thatthe I J ’ s behavi ordur i ng the r emoval pr ocee di ngs i ndi cat ed thats he pr ej udged hi s cas e and di d notgi ve fa i rcons i der at i on t o the t es t i m onyof pet i t i oneroranyA s partof thi s ar gum ent , R ol dan cr i t i ci zes the I J ’ s char act er i zat i on and eva l uat i on of 1 the evi dence . W e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thatas pectof the pr ocee di ngs . See U ren a-T av are z, 36 7 F . 3 d at 16 1 (“It fo ll o w s tha t w h ethe r w e a g ree w ith the IJ’s char act er i zat i on of the under l y i ng evi dence as cr edi bl e vel non w hi ch l ed hi m t o concl ude thatthi s w as nota good fa i th m arr i age, i s i rr el evant , as the s t atut e i t s el f gi ves the A t t orneyG ener al ( act i ng thr ough hi s des i gnee) the s ol e di s cr et i on t o w ei gh the ev iden ce . ”). 4 of the thr ee w i tnes s es he pr es ent ed t o corr obor at e hi s acc ountof the mar r i age. 1 W hi l e ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a di s cr et i onaryw ai ver , al i ens fac i ng r emoval ar e nonethel es s ent i t l ed t o due pr oces s . See A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . D ue pr oces s i n thi s cont extr equi r es thatan al i en be pr ovi ded w i t h a f u l l a n d f a i rh e a r i n g a n d a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r tu n i ty t o p r e s e n te v i d e n c e . S e e R o m a n i s h yn v . A tt o rne yG en . , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A d d it ion all y , w e h av e h eld th at IJ’s have a dutyt o r emai n neutr al and i m part i al w hen conduc t i ng i m m i gr at i on hear i ngs and thatan I J ’ s s t at ement s and beha vi orw hi l e conduc t i ng a hea r i ng m ayr i s e t o the l evel of a due pr oces s vi ol at i on w hen the I J abandons herr ol e as a neutr al fac t fi nderand i ns ul t s and b eli tt les a p eti ti o n er. Se e, e.g., W an g v . A tt o rne yG en . , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 8 -69 (3d C ir . 2005) ; Fi adj oe v. A t t orneyG en. , 411 F. 3d 135, 154- 55 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; A bdul r ahman v. A s h c ro f t, 3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). U pon a thor ough r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatw hi l e the I J w as att i m es s h o rt w ith R o ld a n , h e r c o n d u c t d id n o t in a n yw a yin f ri n g e o n h is ri g h t to d u e p ro c e s s . T h e tra n sc rip t o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s in d ica tes th a t th e IJ e n d e a v o re d to p e rm it R o ld a n to ful l ydevel op hi s cl ai m and w as pr i m ar i l yconce rned w i th cl ear l yes t abl i s hi ng the fa ct s for5

the re co rd. S h e p lace d n o restri cti o n o n the n u m b er o f w itn esse s h e p rese n ted (A . R . 8 9 ), s he as ked cl ar i fy i ng ques t i ons w hen hi s ans w er s w er e uncl earorcontr adi ct oryi n an att empt t o devel op a cl earand compl et e r ecor d ( A . R . 100, 103- 05, 109 112- 13, 115, 119- 20, 121- 22, 131, 132- 33, 136- 38) , and s he gave hi m t i m e t o confe rw i th couns el and ques t i oned hi m ext ens i vel yt o ens ur e thathe ful l yunder s t ood the i m pl i cat i ons of w ai vi ng hi s r i ghtt o r eques tvol unt arydepartur e. ( A . R . 212- 17. ) W hi l e the I J w as act i ve i n the conductof the pr ocee di ngs , herconductbear s no r es embl ance t o thatw hi ch w e have found t o cons t i tut e a due pr oces s vi ol at i on. See W ang, 423 F. 3d at269- 70 ( cr i t i ci zi ng IJ’ s p e rso n a l atta c k s o n p e tit io n e r’s p a re n tin g , ca lli n g h im “ se lf ish ” a n d a “ h o rrib le father , ” s pecul at i ng thathi s w i fe mi ghthave be en s t er i l i zed a ft erthei rarr i val i n the U n ited S tate s to b o lste r h is a sy lu m c laim , an d f o c u sin g o n iss u e s w h ich w e re irre lev a n t to p e titio n e r’ s a s y lu m c la im ). B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e w i l l gr antthe A t t orneyG ener al ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on as t o R ol dan’ s cl ai m thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r evi ew i ng the I J ’ s deni al of a w ai verpur s uantt o I N A § 216( c) ( 4) ( B ) , and w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew as t o R ol dan’ s cl ai m thathe w as depr i ved of hi s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtt o due process i n the con du ctof h i s r em ov al proceed i ng s.