FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C UIT J UNE 7 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16095 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 13- 632- 599 I S M A E L G A R C I A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e ti ti on forR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju n e 7, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , C A R N E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Although G arc ia c ite s a sylum

law i n his bri e f, healsoc on c e de s th at he“ is s tatutorily 1 ineligible f

or asylum as a re sult of his conviction” and hefails to raise any issue relating to the denial of his asylum claim. Petiti oner’ s Br . at 8. It thus appear s that Garc ia is only arguing the denial of w ithholding of removal under theINA and theCAT and does not challeng e the dismiss al of his asylum claim. Accordingly , his asylum claim is deemed a bandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Ga rc ia alsoargue s o n a

pp e al th at hi s cri me , p os se ssi onof ma ri juana , is no t a 2 “particularly

serious crime” pursuant to 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)( 3)(B )(ii) such a s would warrant denial of w ithholding of removal. Garcia a rgued the same issue on appe al bef ore theBIA, and the B IA spec ifically

clarified that neither

its nor the IJ ’s denial of

Garcia’ s withholding of remov al c laim w a s b a se d o n a fi ndingthat thepo sse ssi onof mari juana c ha rg ewa s a “particularly

serious crime” under

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) (ii). Thus, this issue is mootbefore us . Additionally , Garcia ha s not challeng ed the I J ’s denial of

his applications for adjustment of status and c ancellation of removal either bef ore theBIA or beforeus. Thus, these issues are deeme d abandone d. See Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) (statingthat decisions not challeng ed in a petitioner’s brief aredeeme d abandone d on appeal). 2 Is m ae l G ar ci a, a nati ve and ci ti ze n o f C ub a, peti ti on s for re vi ew of the order of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a ti on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i r m i ng w i th a n opi ni on the de t e r m i na ti on by the I m m i gr a ti on J udge ( “ I J ” ) de ny i ng a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a ti on a nd N a tur a l i z a ti on A c t( “ I N A ” ) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1 2 3 1 , a n d r e lie f

u n d e rth e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e ( “C A T ” ) , 8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( c ) . A l th o u g h w e g e n e r a l l y l a c kj u r i s d i c ti o n , p u r s u a n tt o 8 U . S. C. 1 § 1 25 2(a) (2)( C ), t o revi ew G ar ci a’ s f i nal order of re m ov al beca use he i s acr i m i nal a lie n , w e d o h a v e ju r is d ic tio n , g r a n te d b y § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( iii) o f th e R E A L I D A c t, 2 P u b . L . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 1 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , to r e v ie w a n y c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . O urr e vi e w r e ve a l s no vi ol a ti on of G a r c i a ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . A c c or di ngl y , the p e titio n fo rr e v ie w is D I S M I S S E D in p a r t a n d D E N I E D in p a r t.3 I . B AC KG RO UN D G a r c i ae nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n N ove m be r1963 a nd, i n N ove m be r2002, w a s is s u e d an o tic e to a p p e a rc h a r g in g th a t, a t th e tim e h e a p p lie d fo ra d m is s io n to the U ni t ed S t at es , he had n otpo ss es se d a val i d u nexp i re d i m m i grantvi sa , re entry p e r m i t , b o r d e rc r o s s i n g c a r d , o ro th e rv a l i d e n tr y d o c u m e n t , a s r e q u i r e d b y I NA § 211( a ) . A ddi ti ona l c ha r ge s of r e m ovabi l i ty w e r e ba s e d on G a r c i a ’ s O c t obe r1978 pl eaof gu i l ty a s t o p osse ss i ng m ore than fi ve gram s of c annabi s i n B re vard C o u n ty , F lo r id a . G a r c iah a d b e e n p la c e d o n th r e e y e a r s p r o b a tio n fo rth a t o f fe n s e . T he gui l ty pl e aa nd r e l a t e d c ha r ge s s e r ve d a s the ba s i s forde por t a ti on or re m ov abi l i ty on the fol l ow i ng three grou nd s: (1) hi s bei ng an al i en w ho has a d m itte d c o m m ittin g a c ts c o n s titu tin g th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f a n y s ta te , fe d e r a l, o rin te r n a tio n a l c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e v io la tio n , p u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I I ) ; ( 2 ) a n im m ig r a tio n o f f ic e rk n o w in g o rh a v in g r e a s o n to bel i eve thathe w as an i l l i ci ttra ff i ckeri n any control l ed subst ance or has kn ow i ng l y c on spi re d o r a ss i st ed i n i l l i ci ttra ff i cki ng i n any control l ed subst ance , pur s ua ntt o 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 2) ( C ) ( i ) ; a nd ( 3) hi s ha vi ng a dm i tt e d t o c om m i tti ng a n a c t c o n s titu tin g th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f ac r im e o f

m o r a l tu rp itu d e , p u r s u a n t to 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (2)( A )( i )( I) . I n J a nua r y 2003, G a r c i af i l e d a n a ppl i c a ti on fora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a l ong w i th a n a ppl i c a ti on t o a dj us thi s s t a tus t o tha tof ape r m a ne nt4

r e s id e n t. H is a p p lic a tio n fo ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l w a s b a s e d o n h is pol i ti c a l opi ni on a nd m e m be r s hi p i n apa r ti c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup. I n hi s a ppl i c a ti on, he w rot e thatthe C ub an go vernm ent“ pers ec ut ed” hi m and h i s fam i l y bec ause they

“ [di s] agre e[ d] w i th the com m un i s[ t ] sy st em . ” A dm i ni stra ti ve R ec ord (“ A R ”) at 151. H e r e por t e d tha the w a s i nc a r c e r a t e d thr e e ti m e s , c ha r ge d a s a“ s us pe c tof sab o t ag e ag ai n stth e rev o l u ti o n , ” an d “ p h ysi o l o g i cal l y t o rtu red . ” Id . F o r th ese r e a s o n s , h e le f

t fo rth e U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 6 3 w ith h is b r o th e r , O s c a rG a r c ia ( “O s c a r ” ) . I d . G a r c iac la im e d th a t, in 1 9 6 5 , h e a n d O s c a rb e c a m e C I A in fo r m a n ts a nd w e r e tr a i ne d “ i n i nf i l tr a ti on a nd i nfor m a ti on m a tt e r s . ” I d. G a r c i aw r ot e tha the bel i eved thathe w ou l d b e t ortured i f he r eturned t o C ub a bec ause the “ C ub an go vernm entdo es no tforgi ve tho se w ho gi ve any i nform ati on t o the U ni t ed S t at es . ” Id. H e e xp l ai ned thatanother of hi s brothers , R ufi no G ar ci a ( “ R ufi no ”) , had b ee n i nc a r c e r a t e d for12 y e a r s , f r om 1960 t o 1972, be c a us e he w a s a n e ne m y of the C a s tr o r e gi m e . I d. a t152. G a r c i aa l s o c l a i m e d tha tone ( he di d nots a y w hi c h) of h is b r o th e r s h a d b e lo n g e d to th e “R o s aB la n c a ” g r o u p , w h o s e p u rp o s e w a s to conspi re agai nstthe C as tro re gi m e. Id. H e c l ai m ed thatbo th o f hi s brothers had be e n gr a nt e d a s y l um . I d. a t153. G a r c i aa l s o a dm i tt e d on hi s a s y l um a ppl i c a ti on thathe had b ee n charged i n 1 97 8 w i th p osse ss i on of ca nn abi s a nd had b ee n d eni ed l a w f ul pe r m a ne ntr e s i de nts t a tus be c a us e of ha vi ng pl e a d gui l ty the r e t o. I d. a t152, 1 5 4 .5

G a r c iaa tta c h e d n u m e r o u s e x h ib its to h is a p p lic a tio n . T h e o n ly e x h ib it r e l e va ntt o thi s a ppe a l , how e ve r , i s ac opy of the c r i m i na l doc ke ts he e ts how i ng th a t in 1 9 7 8 G a r c iaw a s s e n te n c e d to th r e e y e a r s ’ p r o b a tio n b y th e E ig h te e n th J u d ic ia l C ir c u it C o u r t o f B r e v a r d C o u n ty , F lo r id aa f te rp le a d in g g u ilty to po ss es si on of m ore than fi ve gram s of c annabi s. Id. at19 0-91 . T he sa m e c ri m i nal doc ke ts he e ts how e d tha tG a r c i aw a s a l s o c ha r ge d w i th: ( 1) s a l e , de l i ve r y , or po ss es si on of m ore than 1 00 po un ds of ca nn abi s; (2) i m po rt ati on of a c on trol l ed subst ance ; (3) posse ss i on of a c on trol l ed subst ance w i th i nt entt o sel l or del i ver; a n d ( 4 ) c o n s p ir in g to c o m m it ac r im in a l o f fe n s e . T h e s e fo u rc o u n ts w e r e n o lle pr os e qui . I d. a t191. A t h is h e a r in g , G a r c iate s tif ie d to th e fo llo w in g in fo r m a tio n r e le v a n t to th is appeal . A s t o h i s a sy l um appl i ca ti on , G ar ci a f urther e xp l ai ned thatR ufi no had l ef t C u b ain 1 9 7 9 a n d liv e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s u n til h e d ie d in J u ly 2 0 0 2 . I d . a t 1 1 8 . O s c a rha d tr a ve l e d w i th G a r c i at o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . I d. A ttha tpoi nti n the he a r i ng, the fol l ow i ng e xc ha nge oc c urr e d: [G arci a’ s A tt o rn ey] : W h ati s [O scar’ s] st atu s h ere i n th e U n i t ed S t at es? [G ar ci a] : C i ti ze n [ G a r c ia ’s A tto r n e y ]: O k a y o r. . . D o y o u k n o w h o w h e r e c e iv e d h is c i ti z e ns hi p?6

[I J] : W hatre l evance does thathave? H e’ s A m er i ca n. W hatre l evance does i tha ve a s t o how he be c a m e ac i ti z e n? [ G A ]: O k a y . W e ll, I ’ll a s ka n o th e rq u e s tio n s . H o w ’s th a t? I d . a t 1 1 9 . A s t o h i s app l i ca ti on for a dj ustm entof st atus, G ar ci a e xp l ai ned thathe had b e e n a rr e s te d in th e U n ite d S ta te s th r e e tim e s , b u t o n ly o n e o f th e a rr e s ts r e s u lte d in a s ent ence . Id. at12 2-23 . G ar ci a e xp l ai ned thathe had b ee n arr es t ed for a nd had pl ea d g ui l ty i n 1 97 8 t o u nl oadi ng m ar i j uana from a truck and thathe had ser ved o n e n ig h t in ja il a n d th r e e y e a r s o f p r o b a tio n . I d . a t 1 2 3 . I n h is o r a l d e c is io n , th e I J f ir s t fo u n d th a t G a r c iaw a s r e m o v ab le fo r : ( 1 ) h is adm i ss i on t o a cr i m e of m oral turpi tud e pursuantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (2)( A )( i )( I) ; (2) hi s c on trol l ed subst ance vi ol ati on pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (2)( A )( i )( II ); a nd ( 3) the I J ha vi ng r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tG a r c i ai s a n a l i e n w ho i s orha s be e n a tr a f f i c ke r , orac ons pi r a t ori n tr a f f i c ki ng, i n ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e pur s ua ntt o 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) . T h e n , a s to G a r c ia ’s w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im un der the IN A , the IJ foun d, i nt eral i a, thatG ar ci a had fai l ed t o sho w thati tw as m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha the w oul d be s ubj e c tt o pe r s e c uti on on a c c ountof one of the fi ve enum er at ed grou nd s s etforth i n 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3). T he IJ expl ai ned tha tG a r c i aha d fa i l e d t o pr ove : ( 1) tha tthe C uba n gove r nm e nt ’ s a c ti ons w e r e on a c c o u n t o f

a n e n u m e r a te d g r o u n d ; ( 2 ) th e e x is te n c e o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw e ll-7

foun ded fearof future pers ec ut i on ; and (3) thathi s i nv ol vem entw i th the C IA w as anythi ng bu tm i ni m al . T he IJ al so foun d, as t o G ar ci a’ s w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al c la im u n d e rth e C A T , th a t G a r c iah a d fa ile d to s h o w th a t h e w o u ld m o r e lik e ly th an n o t b e to rtu re d if h e r etu rn ed to C u b a. T h e I J e x p lain ed th at, d es p it e G ar cia’s th r e e a rr e s ts in C u b a , a f te rh e w a s r e le a s e d f

r o m h is la s t a rr e s t, h e r e m a in e d in C ub a for a y ear a nd a hal f w i tho utany di ff i cul ty before he depart ed for the U ni t ed S t a t e s . M or e ove r , the I J r e i t e r a t e d tha tG a r c i a ’ s t e s ti m ony a nd e vi de nc e a s t o a ny c la im e d in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e C I A w a s to o m in im a l to s h o w alik e lih o o d o f to r tu r e . T hu s, the IJ deni ed al l of G ar ci a’ s c l ai m s, i ncl ud i ng w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der th e I NA a n d th e CAT. O n app ea l before the B IA , G ar ci a argued the sa m e i ss ues he now ar gu es be for e us . T he B I A a dopt e d the I J ’ s f i ndi ngs de ny i ng G a r c i a ’ s a s y l um a nd w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A and the C A T . T he B IA al so addres se d G a r c i a ’ s a s s e r ti on tha tthe I J i m pr ope r l y pr e c l ude d hi m f r om s ubm i tti ng in fo r m a tio n ab o u t h is b r o th e r ’s g r a n t o f a s y lu m b y f

in d in g th a t G a r c iah a d fa ile d to e s tab lis h h o w h e h a d b e e n p r e ju d ic e d b y th e I J ’s a lle g e d lim ita tio n o f h is t e s ti m ony . T he B I A not e d tha tG a r c i aha d note ve n pr ovi de d a ny s t a t e m e ntabout w h a t te s tim o n y w o u ld h a v e b e e n o f fe r e d th a t w o u ld h a v e c h a n g e d th e r e s u lt in h is c a s e . A c c or di ngl y , the B I A c onc l ude d tha tG a r c i a ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s ha d not be e n vi ol a t e d. T he B I A a l s o not e d tha tthe I J ha d notde ni e d G a r c i a ’ s w i thhol di ng8

of r e m ova l c l a i m on the ba s i s tha tG a r c i aha d c om m i tt e d a“ pa r ti c ul a r l y s e r i ous c r i m e . ” A R a t3 n. 2. T he I J ’ s de c i s i on w a s a f f i r m e d a nd the a ppe a l di s m i s s e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, “ e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha ti te xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s opi ni on. ” A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . He r e , i n a d d i ti o n t o r e v i e wi n g th e B I A d e c i s i o n , we r e vi e w the I J ’ s opi ni on be c a us e the B I A ha s a dopt e d i ti n f ul l . S e e D - M uhum e d v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 8 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). In so do i ng , w e r evi ew l egal d e te r m in a tio n s b y e ith e rth e B I A o rth e I J d e n o v o . I d . a t 8 1 7 . A . J ur i s di c ti on

“ W e r e v i e w s u bj e c tma tt e rj u r i s d i c ti o n d e n o v o . ” G o n z a l e z - O r o p e z av . U . S. A tt’y G e n ., 3 2 1 F .3 d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . O u rju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w o r d e r s o f

r e m o v a l h a s , in th e p a s t, b e e n r e s tr ic te d b y 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t: no courtshal l have j uri sdi cti on t o revi ew any f i nal order of re m ov al a ga i ns ta n a l i e n w ho i s r e m ovabl e by r e a s on of ha vi ng c om m i tt e d a cr i m i nal offe nse c ov er ed i n sec ti on 11 82 (a )( 2) or 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i i i ), ( B ) , ( C ) , or( D ) of

thi s ti t l e , ora ny of

fe ns e c ove r e d by s e c ti on 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i i ) of thi s ti t l e for w hi ch bo th p re di ca t e off ense s are , w i thoutr e ga r d t o the i rda t e of c om m i s s i on, othe r w i s e c ove r e d by se cti on 12 27 (a )( 2)(A )( i ) of thi s ti t l e. 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( C ) ; s e e B a l ogun v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 425 F . 3d 1356, 1359 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatou r j uri sdi cti on t o revi ew fi nal orders of re m ov alThe ex ception in clause(ii) applies only to aliens who havecommitted only one crime of 3 moral turpitude as listed in (i)( I) and doe s not apply to those who havecommitted controlled substance of

fense s as listed in (i)(II). See 8 U .S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (A)(ii). 9 w a s s i g n i f

i c a n t l y r e s tr i c t e d b y 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , _ _ U . S.

_ _ ,1 2 6 S . C t. 1 9 2 0 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . T itle 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( i) s ta te s th a t: E xc e pta s pr ovi de d i n c l a us e ( i i ) , a ny a l i e n c onvi c t e d of , orw ho 3 adm i t s havi ng com m i tt ed, or w ho adm i t s c om m i tti ng ac t s w hi ch c ons ti tut e the e s s e nti a l e l e m e nt s of – (I ) acr i m e i nv ol vi ng m oral turpi tud e ( other than a pu re l y pol i ti ca l of fe ns e ) ora n a tt e m ptorc ons pi r a c y t o c om m i ts uc h ac r i m e , or ( I I ) avi ol a ti on of

( orac ons pi r a c y ora tt e m ptt o vi ol a t e ) a ny l a w or r e g u la tio n o f

aS ta te , th e U n ite d S ta te s , o rafo r e ig n c o u n tr y r e la tin g to ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e ( a s d e f in e d in s e c tio n 8 0 2 o f

T itle 2 1 ) , is i nadm i ss i bl e. 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) . N e ve r the l e s s , w e ha ve he l d tha t§106( a ) ( 1) ( A ( i i i ) of the R E A L I D A c t , a s i tr e l a t e s t o j udi c i a l r e vi e w of or de r s of

r e m ova l , e xpa nds our j ur i s di c ti on t o a l l ow c ons i de r a ti on of c ons ti tuti ona l c l a i m s a nd que s ti ons of l a w by w a y o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t: N o th in g in s u b p a r a g r a p h ( B ) o r( C ) , o rin a n y o th e rp r o v is io n o f th is Ac t( o th e rth a n th i s s e c ti o n ) wh i c h l i m i t s o re l i m i n a t e s j u d i c i a l r e v i e w, s ha l l be c ons tr ue d a s pr e c l udi ng r e vi e w of c ons ti tuti ona l c l a i m s or qu es ti on s of l aw ra i se d u po n a pet i ti on for r evi ew fi l ed w i th an a ppr opr i a t e c our tof

a ppe a l s i n a c c or da nc e w i th thi s s e c ti on. 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) ( a s a m e nde d by R E A L I D A c t§ 106( a ) ) ; s e e B a l ogun, 4 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 9 - 6 0 ( e x p la in in g th a t th e R E A L I D A c t g a v e u s ju r is d ic tio n to r e vi e w ac r i m i na l a l i e n’ s pe ti ti on forr e vi e w of a n or de rof

r e m ova l r a i s i ng a q u e s tio n o f

la w ) .10

B e c a us e G a r c i adoe s notc ha l l e nge hi s ow n a dm i s s i on t o pos s e s s i on of ca nn abi s ( a c on trol l ed subst ance offe nse) and con ce des thathe i s r em ov abl e on that ba s i s , he i s a n i na dm i s s abl e a l i e n pur s ua ntt o 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 2) ( i ) . T hus , t o the ext entG ar ci a i s r equesti ng thatw e r evi ew fa ctual det er m i nati on s by the IJ or B IA denyi ng hi m w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A and the C A T , w e l ac k j uri sdi cti on pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( C ) a nd the R E A L ID A ctt o revi ew s u c h d is c r e tio n a r y d e te r m in a tio n s , a n d w e m u s t d is m is s th e p e titio n . S e e , e .g ., Ch a c o n Bo t e r o v . U . S. A tt ’ y G e n . , 4 2 7 F. 3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (hol di ng thatdespi t e the expansi on of j uri sdi cti on prov i ded b y the R E A L ID A ct w e do n othave j uri sdi cti on t o add re ss ti m e bari ss ues, w hi ch ar e nei ther c ons ti tuti ona l i s s ue s norque s ti ons of l a w ) . H ow e ve r , a s G a r c i am a i nt a i ns , w e ha ve j uri sdi cti on t o revi ew G ar ci a’ s c on sti tut i on al cl ai m thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol a t e d dur i ng hi s r e m ova l he a r i ng by the I J ’ s a l l e ge d l i m i ti ng of hi s pr e s e nt a ti on o f e v id e n c e . W e n o w r e v ie w th a t is s u e . B . D u e P ro cess G ar ci a argues thatthe IJ vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh tt o p re se ntevi dence on hi s ow n b ehal f by denyi ng hi m the op po rtun i ty t o i ntrodu ce evi dence concerni ng hi s brother’ s c i ti ze nshi p st atus. “ W e r evi ew consti tut i on al chal l enges de no vo . ” L on ye m v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 35 2 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 41 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . “[ T ]h e F if

th A m e n d m e n t e n title s a lie n s to d u e p r o c e s s o f la w in11

de por t a ti on pr oc e e di ngs . ” R e no v. F l or e s , 507 U . S . 292, 306, 113 S . C t . 1439, 14 49 (199 3). T o est abl i sh a due process cl ai m , al i ens m ustshow “ the as se rt ed e rr o r s c a u s e d th e m s u b s ta n tia l p r e ju d ic e .” L o n y e m , 3 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 1 - 4 2 . T h e r e g u la tio n s p r o v id e th a t a n a lie n “m a y p r e s e n t e v id e n c e a n d w itn e s s e s in h i s o r h er o w n b eh al f. ” 8 C . F . R . 1 2 4 0 . 1 1 (c)(3 )(i i i ). H o w ev er, th e reg u l ati o n s al so pr ovi de tha t“ [ t ] he i m m i gr a ti on j udge s ha l l r e c e i ve a nd c ons i de rm a t e r i a l a nd r e l e va nte vi de nc e , r ul e upon obj e c ti ons , a nd othe r w i s e r e gul a t e the c our s e of the he a r i ng. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1240. 1( c ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; s e e a l s o 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( b) ( 1) (st ati n g th atth e IJ sh al l “ recei v e ev i d en ce, an d i n t erro g at e, ex am i n e, an d cro ssexam i ne the al i en and any w i tness es ”) . B e c a us e a n I J ’ s duty i s t o r e gul a t e the c our s e of s uc h he a r i ngs , i n pa r tby e ns ur i ng the r e l e va nc e of e vi de nc e , the I J ’ s r e que s ttha tG a r c i ac l a r i f y the r e l e va nc e t o hi s c a s e of

t e s ti m ony r e ga r di ng hi s br othe r ’ s c i ti z e ns hi p di d not vi ol a t e G a r c i a ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . M or e ove r , G a r c i a ’ s a tt or ne y w a s gi ve n a c ha nc e t o a r gue the r e l e va nc e of G a r c i a ’ s t e s ti m ony , buti ns t e a d aba ndone d i ta nd chose t o p ursue adi ff

er entl i ne of qu es ti on i ng . A dd i ti on al l y, even i f the IJ had er re d in n o t all o w in g G ar cia to testify a s to th e p ar ti cu lars o f h is b ro th er ’s c itiz e n s h ip , G a r c iah a s fa ile d to s h o w h o w h e w a s p r e ju d ic e d th e r e b y .12 I I I . CONCL US I ON G a r c i ape ti ti ons forr e vi e w of the B I A ’ s or de ra f

f i r m i ng the de ni a l of w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A a n d th e C A T . T o th e e x te n t G a r c iais r e q u e s tin g r e v ie w o f

th e I J ’s a n d B I A ’s fa c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n s d e n y in g h im w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A a nd the C A T , w e l a c k j ur i s di c ti on pur s ua nt t o 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( C ) a nd the R E A L I D A c t . W e do, how e ve r , ha ve ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w G a r c ia ’s c la im th a t th e I J v io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts du ri ng hi s r em ov al hear i ng beca use thatcl ai m i nv ol ves r evi ew of a c on sti tut i on al i s s ue . I n r e vi e w i ng tha ti s s ue , w e f i nd tha tG a r c i a ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e not vi ol a t e d by the I J ’ s r e que s ttha tG a r c i ae xpl a i n the r e l e va nc e of t e s ti m ony reg ard i n g h i s b ro th er’ s ci ti zen sh i p . A cco rd i n g l y, th e p eti ti o n i s D I S M I S S E D in p art an d D E N IE D i n p art .